header-logo header-logo

31 March 2022
Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Witness intimidation guidelines issued

The Sentencing Council has proposed its first set of guidelines for the offences of perverting the course of justice and witness intimidation

The Sentencing Council has proposed its first set of guidelines for the offences of perverting the course of justice and witness intimidation.

Currently, there are no guidelines for perverting the course of justice and only limited guidance in the magistrates’ courts for witness intimidation. The Council decided not to include perjury, contempt of court and assisting an offender as incidents of these are relatively low (only five people were sentenced for perjury in 2020, 20 for contempt and 40 for assisting an offender).

It proposed sentences ranging from a community order to between two and seven years of custody for perverting the course of justice, depending on levels of harm and culpability. For witness intimidation, it proposed a range from a community order up to four years in prison.

In 2020, about 400 people were sentenced for perverting the course of justice. The common law offence, which is indictable only, currently has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The offence includes giving false information to police officers at a traffic stop, so avoiding prosecution, to fabricating evidence designed to incriminate an innocent person. 

About 180 people were sentenced in 2020 for witness intimidation, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, an offence which includes pressuring witnesses to withdraw allegations or witness statements or not to give evidence in court.

Sentencing Council member, Mrs Justice Juliet May said: ‘Perverting the course of justice and witness intimidation are serious offences that strike at the heart of justice: they can delay or even derail criminal investigations; they can cast suspicion on innocent people; and victims and witnesses can feel too scared to make a complaint about a crime they have suffered, or have witnessed.’

The 12-week Sentencing Council consultation, which can be found here, ends on 22 June.
Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll