The Director of Public Prosecutions v SK

The offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice is not confined to conduct affecting proceedings already on foot. It may extend to conduct intended to frustrate an ongoing criminal process, including enforcement proceedings arising from breach of an unpaid-work requirement. The offence has no closed list of factual categories, but its scope must develop incrementally and cautiously, consistently with common-law reasoning and Article 7 of the ECHR. The prosecution need not identify the precise future proceedings, provided there is material from which potentially impending proceedings can properly be inferred.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by case stated from the dismissal by the Willesden Youth Court of an information charging SK with conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. SK had undertaken some or all of the unpaid work imposed on another offender, while pretending to be that offender.

The appeal concerned whether enforcement proceedings for breach of the unpaid-work requirement could constitute a relevant contemplated course of justice, and whether evidence of future or contemplated proceedings was required.

1. Appeal allowed. The dismissal was set aside and the case was remitted to the Youth Court for the hearing to continue.

2. The common-law offence requires conduct which is intended to, and has a tendency to, pervert the course of public justice. Conspiracy to commit that offence is criminalised by section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

3. The offence has no closed list of qualifying acts. Any extension to a novel situation must occur incrementally and cautiously, consistently with Article 7 of the ECHR. It is unnecessary that the conduct constitute some separate criminal offence.

4. Enforcement of an unpaid-work requirement may involve criminal proceedings for breach under Schedule 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Those proceedings may lead to substantial sanctions, including imprisonment in appropriate circumstances.

5. The prosecution need not identify the precise proceedings which might ensue. It must provide material from which potentially impending proceedings can properly be inferred. The conduct in this case was capable of frustrating investigation and enforcement of the court’s order.

6. The court left open whether the offence could be committed by dishonest interference with a sentence which was no longer extant.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal by case stated against the Willesden Youth Court’s dismissal and remitted the case for the hearing to continue.