Haase, R v

A defendant convicted of a properly charged common-law conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice may be sentenced within its maximum penalty of life imprisonment, even if the conduct might also have supported a statutory conspiracy-to-defraud charge with a lower maximum.

In fixing sentence for an exceptionally grave conspiracy, the court may begin by removing the benefit obtained through the offence. It must then reflect the independent criminality used to achieve the conspiracy, the offender’s leading role and the need for deterrence. A consecutive sentence may properly reflect that the offender escaped the consequences of earlier serious offending for many years.

John Haase and Paul Bennett were convicted at the Crown Court at Southwark of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. They had orchestrated a scheme which falsely presented them as valuable police informants after their involvement in international drug trafficking. The deception led to the effective replacement of sentences of 18 years’ imprisonment with sentences of five years’ imprisonment.

Cooke J sentenced Haase to 22 years’ imprisonment and Bennett to 20 years’ imprisonment. Haase appealed against sentence. Bennett sought to have his earlier abandonment of an appeal against sentence treated as a nullity. They contended that the sentence was excessive and wrongly failed to treat the statutory maximum for conspiracy to defraud as a meaningful limit.

1. Haase’s appeal was dismissed and Bennett’s application was refused. The conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice was the offence which the appellants had committed and was the charge which properly reflected the full facts and criminality. The possibility that the facts might also have supported a charge of conspiracy to defraud did not alter that conclusion.

2. The maximum sentence for the properly charged common-law conspiracy was life imprisonment. That maximum was certain, and Parliament had not altered it. The sentencing court was therefore required to assess the appellants’ criminality against that maximum, rather than as if the lower maximum for conspiracy to defraud under section 12(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 governed the case.

3. The conspiracy involved more than misleading the sentencing judge. It depended on the procurement, movement and placement of firearms so that the appellants could falsely disclose their locations to the authorities. That conduct was independently serious and the conspiracy therefore encompassed exceptionally grave criminality.

4. The proper starting point was to deprive the appellants of the benefit obtained by their crime: a reduction of 13 years from the sentence which they should have served. A further substantial sentence was justified by their leadership and organisation of the scheme, its independent criminality, and the need to deter comparable conspiracies. The consecutive structure and resulting overall term properly reflected that they had escaped the consequences of their offending for a long period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Haase’s appeal against sentence was dismissed and Bennett’s application to treat his earlier abandonment of an appeal as a nullity was refused: [2011] EWCA Crim 3111.
• Crown Court at Southwark: Cooke J and a jury convicted Haase and Bennett of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice on 19 November 2008. Haase received 22 years’ imprisonment and Bennett received 20 years’ imprisonment.