Attorney General's Reference No. 63 OF 2005

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application by the Attorney General for leave to refer under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 a sentence of 220 hours' community punishment imposed on 23rd May 2005 on the offender by His Honour Judge Price for an offence of perjury.

The matters can be shortly stated. The offender, who is now 27 years of age, is the natural father of a child born in January 2000. The child unhappily suffered an injury, which was in fact a bilateral skull fracture. The offender gave an account that he had accidentally dropped the baby while carrying him downstairs. But those at the hospital considered that the injury was more consistent with violent shaking.

Care proceedings followed. During the course of those proceedings the offender, in effect, said on oath that he knew of nothing which could have given rise to the injuries other than the explanation that he had given. The fact was, as he was later to accept, that he had on the relevant occasion shaken the baby. He said that he had lied about it because he did not have the "guts" to admit it.

He made that confession as long ago as 23rd May 2001. He did so in circumstances where it had become apparent to him that to have maintained what he said was going to have an adverse effect on the interests of his child and the mother.

It was in those circumstances that he was charged ultimately with the offence of perjury. He pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. He showed considerable remorse.

The Attorney General submits that the sentence is unduly lenient and has referred us to authorities, to which we do not need to make express reference, which make it plain that an offence of perjury will _prima facie_ result in an immediate sentence of imprisonment. That is a necessary sanction in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. In the present case, bearing in mind the circumstances, one would have expected a sentence of between 18 months and two years' imprisonment.

Accordingly, we give leave to the Attorney General to refer the sentence. But we take into account the fact that in the present case the offence took place as long ago as 2000. If one adds to that the element of double jeopardy, not merely from the fact that he falls to be resentenced, but also has not been in custody and has had the prospect of custody hanging over him since the reference, it would not, in our view, be in the interests of justice to interfere with the sentence that was imposed.