R v Lisa Ann Bradfield

Conduct intended to pervert the course of public justice strikes at the administration of justice and will almost invariably require an immediate custodial sentence. Deterrence is an important sentencing aim.

Seriousness must be assessed by reference to the underlying offence, the nature and duration of the deception, its effect on others and the success or intended consequence of the attempt, while also allowing for personal mitigation. A sentencing disparity is objectionable only if a fully informed observer would conclude that something has gone wrong in the administration of justice. Material differences in role, voluntariness and personal circumstances may justify different sentences.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Basildon to conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. She was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment after a Newton hearing established that, from 2015, she had willingly assisted a false alibi appeal against a murder conviction.

She appealed against sentence. She contended that the starting point was excessive in light of mitigation, delay and the limited period of her involvement. She also alleged objectionable disparity with a co-accused who received a suspended sentence. The central issues were whether the sentence was excessive and whether the different sentence disclosed objectionable disparity.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 27-month sentence was not excessive and there was no objectionable disparity with the sentence imposed on the co-accused.

2. A sophisticated attempt to overturn a valid murder conviction by false alibi evidence was an exceptionally serious perversion of the course of justice. It directly threatened the administration of justice and required deterrence. Applying the sentencing principles in R v Abdulwahab [2018] EWCA Crim 1399, the court considered the gravity of the underlying murder, the sophistication and duration of the deception, the role played by the appellant and the intended consequence of overturning a true conviction.

3. The appellant had played an important and willing role. She was trusted by the principal conspirator, communicated with false witnesses and the solicitor, and assisted in advancing an appeal she knew rested on lies. The sentencing judge had properly taken account of her mitigation, including delay, previous good character, vulnerabilities and depression. A three-year sentence before credit for the guilty plea was not excessive; the resulting 27-month sentence was correct absent truly exceptional circumstances.

4. The correct question on disparity was whether an observer with full knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances would conclude that something had gone wrong in the administration of justice. The co-accused’s role and personal circumstances were materially different. Unlike the appellant, she had been readily exploited and faced acute personal difficulties. There was therefore no arguable disparity. Further, the sentence imposed on the appellant exceeded the period capable of suspension, so suspension did not arise.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2022] EWCA Crim 1634.
• Crown Court at Basildon: following a guilty plea and a Newton hearing, sentenced the appellant on 24 June 2022 to 27 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.