R v Chloe Maria May

In sentencing for perverting the course of justice, immediate custody is the almost invariable consequence because the offence strikes at the administration of justice and deterrence is important. Suspension remains a matter of weighing the Sentencing Council’s listed factors. However, the factor that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody will ordinarily outweigh rehabilitation, personal mitigation and harmful effects on dependants. Avoiding custody requires a high degree of exceptionality or very compelling reasons. The effect on family life must be balanced against punishment, victims’ just deserts, deterrence and sentencing parity, including the fact that the offence may itself damage victims’ family life.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court to an offence of doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice. On 8 December 2025 she was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, reduced from two years by 25% credit for her guilty plea. The offence involved a detailed and sustained false allegation of rape against three people. The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence, arguing that immediate custody was disproportionate because she was the mother of an 18-month-old child and custody would place substantial burdens on her family. The central issue was whether the custodial sentence should have been suspended.

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

1. Seriousness and culpability. The false allegation was prolonged, elaborate and deliberately maintained. It wasted substantial police resources and caused grave harm to three innocent victims. The sentencing judge properly balanced high-culpability features against the applicant’s domestic abuse, coercion and mental-health difficulties, placing the offence at level B with a two-year starting point. There was no challenge to the length of the custodial term before credit for plea.
2. Suspension of custody. The court followed the principles reviewed in R v Feve [2024] EWCA Crim 286; [2024] 1 WLR 3450. Offences of perverting the course of justice almost invariably call for immediate custody. A high degree of exceptionality or very compelling reasons is required to avoid it. Under the Imposition guideline, the sentencer must weigh the factors for and against suspension. In the great majority of such cases, the seriousness of the offence, the need for punishment and the importance of deterrence mean that immediate custody outweighs rehabilitation, personal mitigation and harmful effects on others.
3. Application of the guideline. The sentencing judge had considered the applicant’s realistic prospect of rehabilitation, low risk of reoffending, personal circumstances and the consequences for her child and family. He was entitled to conclude that appropriate punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody. That conclusion was for him to make, and disclosed no error.
4. Family life. The court also considered the observations in R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214. The effect of custody on an offender’s children must be balanced against punishment of serious crime, victims’ just deserts, deterrence and sentencing parity. The balancing exercise must also recognise that offending may itself cause serious harm to victims’ family life. This case demonstrated that consideration particularly starkly.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the Full Court and refused in [2025] EWCA Crim 1782.
• Crown Court at Leicester: On 8 December 2025, the applicant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice, following a guilty plea.