Key Facts
- •Attorney General's application to refer sentences for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and Juries Act 1974 offences.
- •Four defendants: Damien Drackley, Lorraine Frisby (Drackley's mother), Mark Walker, and Leslie Allen.
- •Allen's trial for drug offences (cocaine and cannabis supply) led to the conspiracy.
- •Conspiracy involved providing false evidence (Hayden, Porter) and jury manipulation (Drackley).
- •Drackley, a juror, contacted his mother (Frisby), who contacted Allen and Walker to orchestrate an acquittal.
- •Drackley attempted to influence fellow jurors, leading to the jury's discharge and Allen's conviction by the judge.
- •Sentences: Drackley (4 years), Frisby (2 years 3 months), Walker (9 months), Allen (5 years consecutive to his 13-year drug sentence).
- •Attorney General argued sentences were unduly lenient; defendants argued sentences were appropriate and considered all relevant factors.
Legal Principles
Offences of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice undermine the criminal justice system and are to be treated seriously, usually requiring immediate custody unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Court precedent and sentencing judge's remarks
Sentencing considers the seriousness of the substantive offence, persistence of conduct, and the attempt's effect.
R v Tunney [2006] EWCA Crim 2066 and R v Abdulwahab [2018] EWCA Crim 1399
Deterrence is an important factor in sentencing for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, but a prison sentence itself is a substantial deterrent.
Judge's remarks and Court of Appeal's judgement
Outcomes
Leave to bring the Reference granted.
The case justified review.
Reference dismissed.
Sentences were not unduly lenient. The trial judge was best placed to consider the appropriate sentence, having considered all relevant factors, and no error of legal principle was found.