R v Nikki Baker

In a sentence appeal for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, a sentence is not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive where it falls well within the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge, even if the precise harm or culpability category is contestable. The applicable guideline assesses harm by the impact on the administration of justice and culpability by factors including planning, the seriousness of the underlying offence and abuse of trust. Once the custodial threshold is passed, the court should consider suspension. A judge need not recite each guideline factor where the sentencing remarks show that the issue was addressed. Rehabilitation, personal mitigation and harm to others may favour suspension, but immediate custody may remain justified by the seriousness of the offence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Stafford Crown Court to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice after participating in the removal of a speeding offence from a police-related processing system. On 21 December 2023, the Recorder sentenced her to 10 months’ immediate imprisonment.

She appealed against sentence, arguing that the offending involved lower culpability and lesser harm than the sentencing judge had found, and that alternatives to immediate custody, including suspension, had not been properly considered. The central issues were whether the sentence was within the range reasonably open to the judge and whether the judge had adequately addressed suspension and community alternatives.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. Guideline categorisation. The applicable Definitive Guideline categorised harm by the impact on the administration of justice: category 1 involved serious impact, category 2 some impact and category 3 limited impact. Culpability ranged from category A, involving features such as sustained, sophisticated or planned conduct, a very serious underlying offence or abuse of trust, through category B, to category C, involving matters such as unplanned, limited or unsophisticated conduct.
2. Sentence and appellate review. The guideline provided a category 1B starting point of two years’ custody, with a range of one to four years, and a category 2B starting point of one year, with a range of nine months to two years. The court held that, whether the case was treated as category 1B or category 2B, the sentence of 10 months fell well within the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. It was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The guilty plea was entered on the third listed day, before the jury was sworn, and therefore attracted little credit.
3. Underlying offence. The court rejected the submission that speeding at 39 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone was not serious. Speed limits existed for public safety, including the safety of children.
4. Suspension. Custody could not be imposed unless the offence was too serious for a fine or community sentence. Once that threshold was passed, the court should consider whether a sentence of that length could properly be suspended. Relevant factors included risk to the public, whether only immediate custody could achieve appropriate punishment, compliance with court orders, rehabilitation, personal mitigation and harmful impact on others.
5. Application. The sentencing remarks showed that the judge had considered suspension and the relevant personal circumstances, including the appellant’s low risk of reoffending, rehabilitation prospects, mitigation and the impact on her son. The judge was not required to recite the guideline factors expressly. The decision to impose immediate custody was reasonably open to her, particularly given the seriousness of the offending and the appellant’s similar inquiries on two other occasions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 238, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Stafford: On 21 December 2023, the Recorder sentenced the appellant to 10 months’ immediate imprisonment for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.