Custody Avoided for Perverting the Course of Justice - 12 Months Community Order - Maidstone Crown Court (2025)

This case involved an allegation of perverting the course of public justice, contrary to common law, against our client, the sister of a serving police officer with Kent Police.

In May 2023, two speeding offences were recorded on consecutive days by the same speed enforcement camera in Kent. The vehicle involved was registered to the father of Mr A, the police officer in question. As such, the Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs) were sent to Mr A’s father.

In response to these notices, submissions were made through an online portal naming two different individuals as the drivers:

• Our client (Mr A's sister) was named as the driver on the first offence date;
• Mr B (a cousin of Mr A) was named as the driver on the second offence date.

Both our client and Mr B subsequently attended and completed Speed Awareness Courses, thereby avoiding penalty points or prosecution.

During the investigation, Kent Police examined various data sources, including:

• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) records;
• Mobile phone location data;
• Mr A's shift records and access logs using his proximity card at the police station.

This data strongly indicated that Mr A was in fact the driver of the vehicle on both days. In contrast, neither our client nor Mr B had phone location data consistent with being in the area at the relevant times.

The Offence – Perverting the Course of Justice:

Perverting the course of justice is a common law offence and one of the most serious offences. It occurs when a person does an act or series of acts which have a tendency and are intended to pervert the course of public justice.

Examples include:

• Lying to the police;
• Making false statements;
• Falsely naming another person as the driver in a motoring offence;
• Encouraging others to give false information.

The offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, though in practice, sentences vary depending on the facts of the case.

Our client, who was privately represented, had admitted taking penalty points in order to protect her brother, the serving officer. Extensive mitigation was prepared on her behalf, focusing on:

• Her genuine remorse;
• Previous good character;
• Personal circumstances and vulnerability;
• The impact custody would have had on her family and employment;
• The fact that she was not the primary instigator of the deception.

At sentencing, Defence Counsel successfully persuaded the court to depart from the immediate custodial starting point. The court imposed a 12-month Community Order as an alternative to imprisonment.

This case underscores the seriousness with which the courts view any interference with the justice system, especially where there is a deliberate attempt to mislead law enforcement. However, it also demonstrates the importance of thorough and tailored mitigation in achieving a non-custodial sentence, even in cases where custodial outcomes are expected.