A, R. v

A truthful complaint of crime is not a private matter. A person who falsely retracts it may commit perverting the course of public justice because the retraction may prevent the prosecution of a guilty offender.

Sentencing must nevertheless distinguish that conduct from a false accusation against an innocent person. Where a truthful complaint of rape or other domestic offending is retracted under pressures arising from an abusive relationship, the court must assess culpability by reference to those pressures and exercise broad compassion towards a complainant who has already been victimised. Although custody will ordinarily remain appropriate for perverting the course of justice, an exceptional case may warrant a community sentence.

The appellant originally reported that her husband had raped her on several occasions. He was charged, but she later made a written statement retracting the allegations. The prosecution then offered no evidence against him.

The appellant was subsequently charged with perverting the course of public justice. At Mold Crown Court she pleaded guilty on the basis that her retraction, rather than her allegation of rape, was false. The judge imposed eight months’ imprisonment.

On her sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the proper assessment of culpability where a complainant retracts a truthful allegation of rape after alleged domestic abuse, fear, and pressure from her husband and his family.

1. The appeal was allowed. The sentence of eight months’ imprisonment was replaced with a community sentence comprising a supervision order for two years. The appellant was entitled to immediate release.
2. Perverting the course of public justice includes falsely retracting a truthful complaint or truthful evidence. A crime concerns the community as well as the complainant and alleged offender. A false retraction may therefore prevent the investigation and conviction of a person who remains free to commit further offences. Such conduct can be serious and normally attracts custody.
3. The sentencing court must, however, distinguish a person who makes a false complaint against an innocent person from a complainant who retracts a truthful allegation against a guilty person. The difference in culpability will often be marked. In a domestic setting, withdrawal of a truthful complaint commonly results from direct, indirect, or subtle relationship pressures.
4. Where rape by a husband or partner, and the associated dominance, power and control, have made the complainant vulnerable, the court must take account of the pressures that led to a positive false retraction. It should assess culpability with a broad measure of compassion for a person who has already been victimised.
5. This was exceptional. The appellant’s guilt was confined to retracting truthful rape allegations. Her account disclosed years of domestic abuse, fear, emotional confusion, pressure connected with her husband and his family, and concern for her children. Those matters made immediate custody disproportionate despite the ordinary seriousness of the offence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted a community sentence with a two-year supervision order: [2010] EWCA Crim 2913.
• Mold Crown Court: Following a guilty plea to perverting the course of public justice by falsely retracting truthful rape allegations, imposed eight months’ imprisonment on 5 November 2010.