Seccombe, R. v

Sentencing for perverting the course of justice requires an assessment of the seriousness of the underlying matter, the persistence of the conduct, and its effect on the administration of justice. Interference with confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is serious because those proceedings serve the public interest in depriving criminals of their gains.

Factors favouring suspension, including the impact of custody on young children, must be weighed against offence seriousness. Immediate custody remains appropriate where it is required for proper punishment. A sentence for a conspirator must nevertheless reflect material differences between offenders, including effective good character and relevant criminal antecedents.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cardiff to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The conspiracy concerned false accounts of the ownership of a car, intended to remove it from confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

On 4 July 2018, the judge imposed 10 months’ immediate imprisonment. The appellant appealed with permission, contending that the sentence should have been suspended or was excessive. The central issues were the seriousness of interference with confiscation proceedings, the effect of her responsibility for two young children, and whether the sentence sufficiently distinguished her from co-conspirators with serious criminal histories.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The Court quashed the sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment and substituted six months’ imprisonment. Immediate custody remained necessary.

2. The seriousness of perverting the course of justice is assessed by the three factors identified in R v Tunney [2007] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 91: the seriousness of the substantive matter, persistence, and the effect on justice. Although there was no substantive offence in the usual sense, interference with confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was serious. Those proceedings advance the important public interest of depriving criminals of the proceeds of crime. The intended evasion concerned property worth thousands of pounds and arose from class A drug dealing.

3. The conspiracy was persistent. The appellant gave lies to the police about the car and the false account continued into the following year. The conspiracy failed only because of the police investigation. These matters, together with the fact of conspiracy, justified the conclusion that an immediate custodial sentence was required for appropriate punishment.

4. The Court accepted that the factors favouring suspension, including the appellant’s low risk and the harm caused to her young children by custody, had to be weighed against seriousness. It also rejected the submission that the judge had failed to allow adequately for the guilty plea, remorse, age, or the principles in R v Petherick [2013] 1 WLR 1102.

5. However, the sentence could not stand because the judge had made no allowance for the appellant’s effective good character when compared with co-conspirators who had serious and recent drug-related offending. The judge had also adopted the same pre-plea starting point for the appellant and her partner despite his substantial criminal record. The proper substituted sentence was six months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the sentence appeal to the limited extent of quashing the 10-month term and substituting six months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Cardiff — the appellant pleaded guilty on 20 April 2018 to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and was sentenced on 4 July 2018 to 10 months’ immediate imprisonment.