Brustenga -Vilaseca, R. v

Sentence for a knowingly false rape allegation must reflect its actual nature, consequences and foreseeability. A case in which the allegation is made against an anonymous assailant, without identifying a person or presumably foreseeing that someone will be arrested, is materially different from the usual false complaint case.

Although the substantial diversion of police resources, harm to an innocent arrested person, and damage to genuine complainants make immediate custody inevitable, strong personal mitigation and the less serious character of the false allegation may require a substantially shorter custodial term.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Guildford Crown Court to an act tending and intending to pervert the course of public justice. She had falsely alleged that an unknown man raped her in a park, underwent examination, and agreed to an identification procedure after being told that a man had been arrested.

The false allegation prompted a major police investigation, including extensive CCTV review, forensic work and the arrest and detention of an innocent man. It later emerged that the appellant had attended a party and had consensual sex. She was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, discounted from a two-year post-trial sentence.

She appealed against sentence, relying on her previous good character, personal circumstances, depression and the unusual features of the allegation.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the 16-month sentence and substituted six months’ imprisonment, resulting in the appellant’s immediate release.

2. The offence was grave. The false rape allegation caused a substantial and costly police investigation, the wrongful arrest and lengthy detention of an innocent young man, and wider harm to the administration of justice. False allegations of rape also increase the difficulties faced by genuine complainants.

3. The sentencing judge had properly considered the appellant’s mitigation, including her impeccable character, isolation, loneliness, depression, strict religious upbringing and fear of her family’s reaction to premarital sex. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal concluded that the balance struck gave insufficient weight to the unusual character of the false allegation.

4. Unlike the usual case, the appellant did not identify an individual as the alleged rapist and did not presumably foresee that anyone would be arrested. She had sought to transfer what occurred at the party into an anonymous rape elsewhere. The case was therefore not a precedent for the typical false rape complaint.

5. Immediate custody remained inevitable because the appellant knowingly persisted in the false allegation for about two weeks and the resulting consequences were considerable. However, the reduced seriousness of this form of allegation, taken with the personal mitigation, made six months’ imprisonment the appropriate sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted six months’ imprisonment.
• Guildford Crown Court: On 10 September 2010, the appellant pleaded guilty to perverting the course of public justice. On 5 November 2010, she was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.