Britton, R v

In an appeal against sentence, a severe sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because it is severe. The appellate court may give substantial weight to the sentencing judge’s assessment where that judge has observed the offender throughout a lengthy trial.

A sustained and calculated conspiracy to pervert the course of justice may properly attract an immediate custodial sentence where it involves grave false allegations, extensive diversion of police resources, distress to those implicated, persistence in dishonesty and an absence of remorse. Personal difficulties and restrictive bail conditions did not require a reduction or suspension of the sentence on the facts of this case.

The applicant was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court on 20 November 2008, after a four-week trial, of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. She and a co-conspirator had made a series of false allegations to police over five months in 2006, including allegations of burglary, blackmail, kidnapping, rape, assault and police corruption.

The investigations consumed about 7,000 police hours and cost approximately £316,000. The applicant maintained her innocence, showed no remorse and attributed blame to others. On 22 December 2008, the trial judge imposed four years’ imprisonment.

Having granted an extension of time, the Court of Appeal considered whether the four-year sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it should be reduced or suspended.

1. Application refused. The sentence of four years’ imprisonment was severe, but it was not manifestly excessive.

2. The offending was highly unusual and serious. Over a sustained period, the applicant made calculated false allegations of grave crime, including allegations which placed others in jeopardy of arrest or prosecution. The allegations required extensive investigation because the police could not initially dismiss them as groundless.

3. The court took account of the substantial waste of public resources, the impact on police officers and other persons involved, the deliberate and planned nature of the conduct, and the applicant’s persistence in her dishonesty. Her lack of remorse was also material.

4. The medical material did not support any suggestion that the applicant genuinely believed the false allegations. If she had held such beliefs genuinely, serious mental-health issues would have required proper exploration at trial.

5. The court attached weight to the sentencing judge’s opportunity to assess the applicant during the four-week trial. Her personal difficulties, low assessed risk, and restrictive bail conditions during pre-trial delay did not justify reducing or suspending the custodial sentence.

6. Inaam, [2006] EWCA Crim 1073, and Walsh and Nightingale, [1993] 14 Cr.App.R (S) 671, did not assist in determining whether this sentence was manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Extension of time granted; application for leave to appeal against sentence referred to the full court and refused: [2009] EWCA Crim 1915.

• Crown Court at Chelmsford: The applicant was convicted on 20 November 2008 of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and, on 22 December 2008, sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.