Perverting the course of justice is an inherently serious offence

Perverting the course of justice is an insidious offence striking at the root of the criminal justice system. A false allegation of crime wastes the resources of the Crown and risks the prosecution of an innocent person. Witness intimidation erodes public confidence in the justice system. This offence can be committed in other ways with varying degrees of gravity. Prosecutions arising from false declarations are increasing.

The rise of speed detection devices has led to many more prosecutions of minor road traffic contraventions. More drivers face disqualification placing their livelihoods in danger which increases ?the temptation to give false details about ?the identity of the driver. Doing so is ?perverting the course of justice and the ?penalties are severe.

Of course, pressure of circumstances is no mitigation. This is a serious offence. Even a person of exemplary good character is at risk of a short custodial sentence. It should not be presumed that custody cannot be avoided merely because there was an initial false declaration. The sentencing court will consider factors identified in the case of ?R v Tunney [2007] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 91. Those include the seriousness of the substantive offence to which the perverting of the course of justice relates, the degree of persistence shown and the effect of the deceit itself.

In cases of giving false details, for the most part, the issue for the court is the degree of persistence shown and the effect upon justice.

Aggravating feature

The case of R v Francis-McCann [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 14 demonstrates the aggravating nature of the persistence of a defendant in his attempt to pervert the course of justice. It involved a man who had served admirably in the Army for some nine years. After receiving a notice of intended prosecution for a speeding contravention he phoned the police was no longer in his possession at the time of the offence. He subsequently sent a letter on Army headed paper explaining he had taken the vehicle to Germany and removed the vehicle registration licence plate. He continued to maintain that the vehicle would have shown a different index number at the time of the offence and that his old licence plate was attached to a different vehicle used by another person. He was convicted after a trial and received three months imprisonment which was upheld on appeal. The court observed that the gravamen of his offending lay not in the initial false nomination but in his continued maintenance of the lie.

Similarly, the aggravating feature in the case of R v Burnley [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 57 was the persistence shown by the appellant. This case involved a father and son were jointly charged. The pair had both consumed a large amount of alcohol before the son drove them home. During the journey they were involved in a collision with a lorry. They fled the scene. When officers arrested them the father claimed he had been driving. That was supported at that time by the son. The father was breathalysed and found to be over the limit. The driver of the lorry told police that the son had been driving and the son did ultimately confess to the lie. Despite this the father continued to maintain during a second interview that he had been driving. He eventually admitted the deception, pleaded guilty and received a twelve months' sentence which was reduced to six on appeal. The court conceded that a wish to protect his son was understandable but took the view that since this defendant had persisted in the deception for several days despite his son's confession, only a custodial sentence was possible.

Of course, another factor for consideration in Burnley was the nature of the substantive offence. The conduct to which the perverting of the course of justice related was of a graver kind than in Francis-McCann. However, despite this the son in Burnley was also charged with perverting the course of justice and he received only a suspended sentence because he had resiled from the deception with 24 hours.

Degrees of seriousness

In the case of R v Snow [2008] EWCA Crim 580 the court was concerned that there had been a significant impact on the course of justice. The appellant had been stopped on two occasions by police officers while driving a motor vehicle. He gave his brother's details on both occasions. A summons was issued in the brother's name. The brother did contact the police to explain he was not the driver but did not attend his trial and was convicted in absence. The defendant was subsequently stopped and admitted the deception immediately. He received a sentence of nine months' imprisonment on each count to be served consecutively which was reduced to nine months on the first and three months on ?the second.

The court was persuaded to reduce the sentence because the first offence was more serious as it had led to the prosecution and conviction of an innocent person. The second did show persistence but it had a reduced impact on the course of justice and so a reduction was appropriate. Many defendants who give false details to the police but confess immediately are charged with obstructing a police officer and receive a financial penalty at the magistrates court.