Weiner, R. v

Deliberately planting incriminating material and using the police to procure an innocent person’s arrest is an exceptionally grave form of perverting the course of justice. Sentence must reflect planning, breach of trust, persistence, lack of remorse, the particular stigma of the false allegation, and the intended and enduring harm to the victim.

In a case of extreme aggravation involving the planting of evidence, a range of 10 to 12 years’ imprisonment was appropriate. A sentence at the top of that range requires facts placing the offending in the most serious category.

The appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice, and of two offences of possessing indecent photographs of children. He had planted indecent images on a work colleague’s computer, anonymously alerted the police, and later caused publicity about the colleague’s arrest.

On 23 September 2010, the judge imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for the principal offence. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive. The issue was the proper sentence for this planned and malicious attempt to secure the arrest and apparent disgrace of an innocent person.

1. Appeal allowed as to sentence. The sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for perverting the course of justice was manifestly excessive and was reduced to 10 years.

2. The offending was exceptionally serious. The appellant had carefully planned the planting and concealment of indecent images on the victim’s computer, abused a position of trust, falsely engaged the police, and persisted without remorse. He then alerted the press, causing grave and continuing harm to the innocent victim and his wife.

3. False conduct which exposes another person to arrest, imprisonment and wrongful conviction is particularly serious. Its gravity was increased here by the stigma attached to the allegation, the deliberate use of the police as unwitting instruments, and the long-lasting effect on the victim’s employment, home life and health.

4. The court treated Attorney General’s Reference Nos 6, 7 and 8 of 2001 (Rees and others) [2002] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 76 as indicating a range of 10 to 12 years where evidence is planted in circumstances of extreme aggravation. Although this case was grave, it did not fall within the extreme category warranting the upper end of that range. A sentence at its lower end was appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced the sentence for perverting the course of justice from 12 years to 10 years.
• Central Criminal Court: The appellant was convicted on 4 August 2010 and sentenced on 23 September 2010 to 12 years’ imprisonment for perverting the course of justice, with concurrent sentences for two offences of possessing indecent photographs of children.