R v Jamie-Lee Fox

Perverting the course of public justice by seeking to induce a complainant in a serious sexual-offence case to change their account is an offence for which immediate custody will ordinarily be required. The sentencing court must weigh the interference with family life caused by imprisonment against the legitimate aims of punishment, deterrence and protection of the justice system. Where the offending is grave and satisfactory arrangements exist for dependent children, that interference may be proportionate. Strong personal mitigation, including childcare responsibilities and ill health, does not require a sentence to be suspended where only immediate custody can properly reflect the seriousness of sustained witness pressure.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cambridge to two counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. She had assisted attempts to pressure the complainant in her brother’s rape case to alter her account, first by passing material to an intermediary and later through direct Facebook messages.

His Honour Judge Philip Grey imposed concurrent sentences of two years and eight months’ imprisonment after allowing 10 per cent credit for the late guilty pleas. The applicant sought leave to appeal on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that her personal mitigation and the effect on her three children had not been adequately reflected, and that the sentence should have been suspended. The central issue was whether immediate custody was disproportionate in light of the impact on her children and other mitigation.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence was neither arguably wrong in principle nor arguably manifestly excessive.

2. The offending was exceptionally serious. It formed part of a sustained effort to cause the complainant in a rape case to change her account or withdraw her complaint. The applicant facilitated pressure through an intermediary and then personally used emotional manipulation, false assertions and direct contact to press the complainant. Conduct of that kind strikes at the criminal justice system’s ability to investigate and prosecute serious crime. Immediate custody will almost always be required for perverting the course of justice, particularly where the underlying allegation is rape and the witness is vulnerable.

3. The sentencing judge had expressly considered the applicant’s good character, ill health, responsibility for three children and the pre-sentence report. The applicant’s late guilty pleas had deprived her of the substantial mitigation available for an early admission. Although the information before the sentencing judge about childcare arrangements was less complete than it should have been, as noted by reference to R v Rebecca Rescorl [2021] EWCA 2005, satisfactory arrangements had in fact been made and remained in place.

4. Applying R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214, imprisonment necessarily interfered with family life, but the interference was lawful, pursued legitimate sentencing aims and was proportionate. The gravity of the offence, the need for punishment and deterrence, and the complainant’s interests outweighed the interference where the children were properly cared for. A sentence capable of suspension could not properly have been passed, and a suspended sentence order would not have been appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the Full Court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 1667.
• Crown Court at Cambridge: the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of perverting the course of public justice and was sentenced by His Honour Judge Philip Grey to concurrent terms of two years and eight months’ imprisonment.