Mercer, R v

For an offence of perverting the course of public justice, an immediate custodial sentence will ordinarily be required unless exceptional circumstances exist. Gravity is assessed by reference to the seriousness of the substantive offence, the persistence of the deception, and its effect on the administration of justice. The effect is not measured only by the period for which the deception succeeded. A deliberate false statement supporting a key murder suspect and concealing material evidence may seriously undermine the investigation and justify a substantial sentence. A non-guideline sentencing decision must be assessed on its own facts and does not set a tariff for a materially more serious case.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. She had knowingly given police false information about a silver bicycle connected with the murder investigation of Rhys Jones, while her son was a key suspect. The Recorder of Liverpool sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment on 1 April 2009.

After a single judge refused permission, she renewed her application for leave to appeal against sentence. She relied on personal mitigation, her guilty plea, and a previous sentencing decision involving a false account intended to exculpate a murderer. The central issue was whether the three-year sentence was manifestly excessive.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. Perverting the course of public justice is ordinarily so serious that an immediate custodial sentence is required unless exceptional circumstances exist. The court adopted that established principle as stated in Attorney General’s Reference No 35 of 2009 [2009] EWCA Crim. 1375.
2. The gravity of this type of offence was to be assessed using the factors identified in R v Tunney [2007] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 565: the seriousness of the substantive offence, persistence in the misleading conduct, and the effect on the administration of justice.
3. Each factor weighed heavily against the applicant. The substantive offence was the murder of an innocent child. Her false account was not corrected for several months. Although it was a single statement and did not involve destroying evidence, it concerned a bicycle of crucial importance to the investigation.
4. The court rejected the submission that the limited period of actual delay reduced the seriousness of the offence. The material effect was that the deception undermined the due administration of justice. The applicant knew her son was a key murder suspect, knew the significance of the bicycle, and knowingly reinforced his false account until other evidence enabled police to resolve its whereabouts.
5. The sentence in R v Gonsalves [2008] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 14 was a fact-specific, non-guideline decision. Its facts were considerably less serious and it did not show that this sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant’s mitigation and guilty plea had been taken into account, including a 25 per cent reduction for the plea.

The three-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence in [2009] EWCA Crim 2100.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: the applicant pleaded guilty on 16 February 2009 and was sentenced by the Recorder of Liverpool to three years’ imprisonment on 1 April 2009.