R v Fharharde Uddin

When sentencing for acts intended to pervert the course of justice, proportionality is assessed primarily against the seriousness of the offence the offender originally faced, where that offence explains the course of conduct, rather than only against a lesser offence accepted by plea. Sustained conduct, a serious underlying offence, serious impact on the administration of justice and substantial delay may together justify moving above the guideline starting point. Cooperation by the victim does not reduce culpability and may aggravate the offence if procured by the offender and leads to the victim’s arrest. A judge need only indicate that totality has been considered. The appellate question is whether the aggregate sentence is just and proportionate, and not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The applicant received consecutive sentences of 4½ years’ imprisonment for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and for doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. The total sentence was nine years. The Crown Court at Lewes also imposed a driving disqualification. A Single Judge refused leave to appeal, and the applicant renewed the application. The issues were whether the sentence for perverting the course of justice was too high and whether the consecutive sentences failed to reflect totality.

Renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

1. The court held that proportionality in sentencing for perverting the course of justice had to be assessed primarily against the attempted murder charge which the applicant originally faced, rather than solely against the lesser driving offence to which he later pleaded. The original charge explained the seriousness and context of the sustained course of conduct.
2. The offending was properly placed in the highest guideline categories. Sustained conduct and the seriousness of the underlying offending were high-culpability factors. The serious impact on the administration of justice and the substantial delay caused were category 1 harm factors. Multiple culpability and harm factors justified moving above the four-year starting point. The applicant’s serious previous offending and the commission of the present offences while on licence were further aggravating factors.
3. The victim’s participation did not reduce the seriousness of the offending. Persuading her to support the false account, leading to her own arrest, was capable of aggravating the offence.
4. Consecutive sentences were appropriate. A sentencing judge need not give a more detailed explanation of totality than an indication that it has been considered, as stated in R v Bailey [2020] EWCA Crim 1719; [2021] 2 Cr App R (S) 15.
5. Standing back, the total sentence of nine years was just and proportionate to the overall criminality. It was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The renewed application was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in [2026] EWCA Crim 1122 , refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Crown Court at Lewes: on 25 July 2025, HHJ Gold KC imposed consecutive sentences of 4½ years’ imprisonment, totalling nine years, together with a driving disqualification.