Ozakpinar, R v

Sentencing for corruption by a senior public servant must reflect the damage caused to public confidence and the need for deterrence. The proper assessment is not confined to the amount of the corrupt payments or to whether the public employer obtained value for money.

Guidelines concerning theft or breach of trust do not provide the sentencing yardstick for corruption. Corruption includes distinct criminality, particularly where an official abuses procurement procedures, arranges payments to facilitate personal rewards, and acts repeatedly. A related false-accounting offence may properly increase the total sentence even if, viewed alone, it might not require immediate custody.

The appellant, the Chief Procurement Officer for the Crown Prosecution Service, was convicted at Croydon Crown Court of three counts of corruption and one count of false accounting. He had assisted contractors, including friends, to obtain work and received payments following contractual milestone payments. He also caused an invoice to be presented before work was completed and received part of the resulting payment.

On 24 September 2007, he received concurrent sentences of two and a half years’ imprisonment for the corruption counts and 12 months’ imprisonment for false accounting. He appealed on the grounds that the total sentence was manifestly excessive, relying on theft and breach-of-trust sentencing guidance, an asserted comparison with another corruption case, and disparity with his co-defendants.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, and the sentencing judge had made no error.

2. The appellant’s corruption was grave because he was a senior civil servant responsible for substantial public funds. He bypassed or distorted proper procurement procedures, assisted three contractors, and arranged milestone payments without approval from his financial director. Those arrangements enabled the contractors’ payments to him.

3. The court rejected the submission that the Barrick and Clark theft and breach-of-trust guidelines supplied the appropriate sentencing yardstick. Corruption has elements of criminality distinct from ordinary dishonesty. Nor was there a proper basis for applying to a public official who receives corrupt payments the same scale as might apply to a private businessman who makes them.

4. The false-accounting offence could be taken into account when fixing the total custodial sentence. Even if it had not alone crossed the custody threshold, it would have attracted significant punishment in another form.

5. Bush [2003] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 117 was distinguishable. The appellant occupied a substantially more senior national role, engaged in corrupt dealings with three contractors, and manipulated the payment arrangements. The different sentences imposed on the co-defendants did not establish an unacceptable disparity.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2008] EWCA Crim 875.

• Crown Court at Croydon: on 24 September 2007, convicted the appellant of three counts of corruption and one count of false accounting and imposed a total sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment.