header-logo header-logo

Witness intimidation guidelines issued

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll