R v Michael Wilson

Perverting the course of justice ordinarily requires an immediate custodial sentence because it undermines the administration of justice. Suspension is justified only in exceptional circumstances. Sentencing should consider the seriousness of the substantive offence, the persistence of the conduct and its effect. An Attorney General’s reference addresses gross sentencing error, rather than every legitimate disagreement about sentence length. Even where a sentence is found unduly lenient, the court retains discretion not to order immediate custody. That discretion may take account of post-sentence compliance, unpaid work, compensation and other current circumstances.

The Attorney General referred a sentence imposed on Michael Wilson after he pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice, dangerous driving and criminal damage. The Crown Court at Huntingdon imposed a total custodial term of 24 months, suspended for two years, together with unpaid work, compensation and driving disqualification.

The Attorney General argued that the total sentence was too short and that suspension was impermissible because perverting the course of justice ordinarily requires immediate custody absent exceptional circumstances. Mr Wilson relied on his suicide attempt, caring responsibilities and subsequent compliance with the suspended sentence order. The central issues were whether the sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, whether the Court should order immediate custody.

1. Leave and sentence length. The court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. An Attorney General’s reference is directed to correcting gross sentencing error. Having considered comparable authorities and relevant guidelines, the court could not say that the Recorder erred in identifying a total sentence of 24 months after credit for the guilty pleas. The sentence was therefore not unduly lenient as to length.
2. Perverting the course of justice. The court identified three relevant sentencing considerations: the seriousness of the substantive offence, the degree of persistence in the conduct and the effect of the attempt to pervert justice. The offence strikes at the heart of the administration of justice because lies and deception impede the criminal justice system. An immediate custodial sentence should ordinarily be imposed. Suspension is permissible only in exceptional circumstances.
3. The Recorder had identified the suicide attempt, Mr Wilson’s caring responsibilities and shared care of his daughter as exceptional circumstances. The Court of Appeal held that those matters did not justify suspension. The deception had continued for 15 months and had caused substantial investigative work and harm. The sentence was accordingly unduly lenient because immediate custody had not been imposed.
4. Discretion not to interfere. A finding of undue leniency did not require the court to make the custodial term take effect immediately. The court could take account of developments since sentence, including the completion of 110 hours of unpaid work, payment of compensation and the National Probation Service’s assessment of excellent compliance. In the particular circumstances, the court exercised its discretion not to order immediate imprisonment. Leave was granted and the sentence was found unduly lenient, but it was not varied.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, granted leave, found the sentence unduly lenient, but declined to order immediate custody: [2023] EWCA Crim 673.
2. Crown Court at Huntingdon: imposed a total custodial term of 24 months, suspended for two years, with unpaid work, compensation and related orders.