R v Lauren Evans

When sentencing under a guideline, the court must identify the offence category and starting point, then adjust for the particular culpability and harm factors. It may move outside the category range after considering the guideline’s contextual factors and the offender’s mitigation. A judge should not reduce a sentence to the bottom of the range and then make a separate, unstructured reduction for personal mitigation where that risks double counting. On an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Court of Appeal may increase an unduly lenient sentence caused by a guideline error, even if later circumstances make renewed custody difficult.

This was an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 concerning a 12-month sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Southwark. The respondent, a police constable, had been convicted after giving a false account of being stopped and searched, which led to a substantial investigation and the arrest and suspension of an innocent police officer. The sentencing judge treated the offence as category 1A, reduced the four-year starting point to two years, and then imposed 12 months after taking account of mitigation. The central issues were whether the sentence was unduly lenient because of a misapplication of the sentencing guideline and whether the court should increase it despite the respondent’s release.

1. Disposition. Leave was granted and the Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The sentence was increased from 12 months’ immediate imprisonment to two years’ immediate imprisonment. The respondent was directed to surrender to Guildford Police Station by 4 pm.
2. Offence classification and harm. The court upheld category 1A. Sustained conduct and breach of trust or abuse of position were high culpability factors. The arrest, custody and suspension of an innocent police officer engaged the category 1 harm factor concerning serious consequences. Serious distress to the officer and his family engaged a further harm factor. Although there was overlap in relation to the officer, the effect on his family was separate and important.
3. Guideline methodology. After determining the category, the court must use the relevant starting point and category range, while adjusting upwards or downwards for particular culpability and harm features, including multiple factors. The guideline also permits movement outside the range after relevant contextual and offender factors have been considered. The respondent’s mitigation included good character, complex PTSD, caring responsibilities, a difficult background, employment prospects, loss of employment and targeting in custody. There was no applicable reduction for assistance, a guilty plea, totality or compensation.
4. Error and sentence. The judge had reduced the four-year starting point to the bottom of the range and then made a further separate reduction for good character and personal mitigation. That was not the approach required by the guideline and risked double counting. Although the case was unusual and the mitigation was important, the two culpability factors and two harm factors meant that 12 months was too low. The appropriate sentence was two years.
5. Exercise of discretion. The guideline error had resulted in an unduly lenient sentence. It was therefore appropriate to increase the sentence under the statutory reference procedure, notwithstanding the respondent’s release, reconnection with her family and employment. That consequence required her return to custody.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave, allowed the Attorney General’s reference and increased the sentence to two years’ immediate imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Southwark: Following conviction on 8 December 2025, imposed 12 months’ immediate imprisonment on 2 March 2026.