Thomas, R v

A substantial custodial sentence may be justified for a knowingly false rape allegation which is maintained over several days, causes innocent people to be arrested and investigated, and diverts significant police resources. The impact on genuine complainants and on those falsely accused is a material aggravating feature.

However, sentence must remain proportionate after allowing for an early guilty plea, remorse and relevant personal difficulties. An appellate court may reduce a sentence where it agrees that custody is necessary but considers the term excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Wolverhampton Crown Court to doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. After consensual intercourse with a man outside a restaurant, she falsely reported that she had been raped.

She initially identified an innocent restaurant employee as an Asian male assailant. He was arrested, detained and medically examined, and later lost his employment. A second man was also arrested after a press release. The appellant continued the allegation in police interviews before admitting that it was false.

The Recorder sentenced her to 32 months’ imprisonment. She appealed on the grounds that insufficient weight had been given to remorse and her early plea, and that the sentence was too long.

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The court substituted a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for the Recorder’s sentence of 32 months.

2. The Recorder was right to regard the offence as serious. The false allegation was wholly irresponsible, was maintained despite repeated opportunities to correct it, and caused serious harm to two innocent men. One was publicly arrested, detained and subjected to medical investigation, and lost his job. The false allegation also caused substantial and unnecessary use of police resources at a busy time.

3. The court also accepted the Recorder’s observation that such conduct has wider implications for genuine victims of sexual offending. The appellant’s sustained lies, rather than the initial impulsive report alone, materially increased the seriousness of the offence. The custody threshold was therefore plainly crossed.

4. Nevertheless, the court took account of the appellant’s personal difficulties and problems, together with the mitigation already identified, including her early guilty plea and remorse. Although immediate custody was warranted, 32 months was excessive in all the circumstances. The proportionate term was 18 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — By [2008] EWCA Crim 412, allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 18 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton — The Recorder sentenced the appellant to 32 months’ imprisonment after her guilty plea.