No: 200606018 A5 
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Crim 149
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 19th January 2007
 
B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE 

MR JUSTICE TOULSON 
 
RECORDER OF LONDON
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION) 

- - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

-v- 

MARK ANDREW KNIGHT
 
 - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -
MR G CURTIS-RALEIGH appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT
 - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	RECORDER OF LONDON:  On 16th October 2006, before the Reading Crown Court, the appellant Mark Andrew Knight pleaded guilty to one count of doing an act tending or intending to pervert the course of justice.  After an adjournment to obtain a pre-sentence report, he was on 17th November sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, a sentence he now appeals against by leave of the Single Judge.
2.	The facts are these: that the appellant's brother, Peter Knight, was arrested for an assault that took place on 4th November 2004.  During those proceedings Peter Knight failed to surrender and a warrant was issued for his arrest.  On 21st July 2006, the appellant Mark Knight went to Reading police station claiming to be his brother Peter.  No further enquiries were made.  An arrest warrant was duly executed and, on 26th July 2006, the appellant appeared before the Reading Magistrates Court, where he pleaded guilty to an offence of assault and received a six month custodial sentence with an additional month for the failure to surrender.  On 15th August, the appellant's mother reported him as a missing person.  He was found to be in prison and was there arrested for the offence of perverting the course of justice.  
3.	When he was interviewed, he admitted who he was and explained that he handed himself in to the police in the name of his brother, the reason being that he was going through a difficult period in coming to terms with his drink and drug addictions.  At no time during the proceedings for perverting the course of justice did the appellant implicate his brother and the warrant against his brother remained outstanding.
4.	When he came to pass sentence, the learned Recorder indicated that the circumstances were extraordinary but the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was justified, whatever the appellant's personal circumstances and whatever mitigation could be proffered on his behalf, because perverting the course of justice undermines the criminal justice system and goes to the heart of it making a prison sentence inevitable. He indicated that he was taking account of the mitigation advanced on the appellant's behalf, all that was known about him, the pre-sentence report and its recommendation.  However, the appropriate sentence, he announced, was 12 months' imprisonment, indicating that, had the appellant not pleaded guilty, the sentence would have been one of 18 months.
5.	The appellant has previous convictions: seven court appearances spanning some 25 offences, in the main acquisitive offences to fund drug and alcohol abuse.  They included a custodial sentence in October 2003.  A pre-sentence report, dated 13th November, indicated that the appellant made no attempt to minimise his actions.  Even so, his personal view was that it did have the desired effect in itself because in the short time he had been in custody he received the help and support he had been seeking in taking this action in the first place.  He was assessed as posing a medium risk of reoffending and a low risk of harm to the public.  He claimed to be drug free and almost alcohol free.  If this continued and he maintained his level of motivation to address these issues, then in the opinion of the author his risk of reoffending would significantly reduce.  The pre-sentence report pointed out that the appellant was surprised that the offence was considered so seriously and indicated that if he had known the full implications of his actions he would not have committed the offence.  A Community Order was recommended.  
6.	There was before the court below and considered by this court a letter from the appellant and from his sister. A prison report ordered by the Single Judge indicated that he had been a model prisoner.  
7.	His grounds of appeal contend that, in view of the circumstances of the case and the mitigation available, the sentence passed was manifestly excessive.  Insofar as there is a tariff for offences of this sort, resulting in the arrest of an innocent person, it is in the four to 12 months range and no such innocent victim existed here.  
8.	This court agrees.  A custodial sentence was appropriate to make the point that the Recorder drew attention to in his sentencing remarks.  As to its length, the fact that there was no victim has relevance.  It was not the sort of case, as seen in so many like offences, where an innocent victim was put at risk.  The appellant was in addition entitled to credit for his plea of guilty.  In the judgment of this court, the right sentence is a term of six months' imprisonment.  Accordingly, that imposed below, 12 months, is quashed and a term of six months substituted and to that extent this appeal succeeds.