R v Lauren Evans

His Majesty's Attorney General applies, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for leave to refer to this court a sentence which she considers to be unduly lenient.

The respondent is Lauren Evans. She is 34 (nearly 35) years of age. She was a police officer but was dismissed following her conviction on 8 December 2025, in the Crown Court at Southwark before His Honour Judge Martin Griffith and a jury, for one offence of doing acts tending or intended to pervert the course of public justice. On 2 March 2026, Ms Evans was sentenced to 12 months' immediate imprisonment. A surcharge was imposed.

It is submitted by Mr Brocklehurst, on behalf of the Attorney General, that this was a category 1A offence, with a starting point of four years' imprisonment; that there should have been an increase in that figure to reflect two high culpability factors and two category A harm factors; and that although there was important mitigation available to Ms Evans, the reduction made by the judge was far too great.

It was submitted by Mr Ponte KC, on behalf of Ms Evans, that it was common ground that the starting point was four years' imprisonment, but that there should have been a reduction to reflect the very unusual nature of the case; that there had been no intention to harm others; that there was abundant mitigation, including Ms Evans’ troubled upbringing and her exceptional progress to become a police officer; the fact that she had (albeit rightly) lost her job following her conviction; her diagnosed complex post traumatic stress disorder; and the fact that she is now a carer for her stepchildren. It was submitted that it was the trial judge who had carried out the sentencing exercise and that the sentence imposed was not unduly lenient, but that even if it were, we should exercise our discretion not to interfere with it.

We are very grateful to both Mr Brocklehurst and Mr Ponte for their helpful written and oral submissions.

Ms Evans was a police constable. She was attached to Bromley Police Station. On 22 March 2023, she was travelling to start a shift at Bromley Police Station. She was expected to be on parade starting at 13.45 hours. It seems that she was concerned that she was running late.

At 13.08 hours – so half an hour before the parade was due to start – she sent a message to her police sergeant and also to her inspector. Both messages read: "I've just been pulled over!!" The inspector responded, asking whether she would be on time. Ms Evans replied: "I'm here, just coming down now". She said that she thought that it was intelligence for drugs and she was searched. The sergeant responded asking whether she was "all good".

When she arrived at work, Ms Evans attended the shift parade, She was on time. There was a briefing where she was heard to explain to officers that she had been stopped by Kent Police. The inspector noted that she looked flustered and he told her that he would speak to her after the parade, because he was concerned about the legality of the stop. The reality was that there had been no stop. As the judge put it, this was a lie that "snowballed out of control".

Ms Evans spoke to the inspector and explained to him that she had been stopped on Perry Street, just off the Sidcup bypass, by an unmarked car which displayed blue lights in the front grill. She described how a male had got out of the car and asked her to step out of her car. The male had told her that he was Police Constable Watson of Kent Police and that there was a drugs marker on the car she was driving. That person had searched both her and her car before letting her go on her way. The inspector raised a concern that this person may have been impersonating a police officer.

The inspector together with another police sergeant conducted a preliminary investigation into the circumstances of the stop. Enquiries made of police systems showed that there was no marker on Ms Evans’ car, and enquiries made of Kent Police confirmed that none of their vehicles had been in the area of the alleged stop at the relevant time. These results confirmed to the inspector the possibility that Ms Evans may have been stopped by someone impersonating a police officer and that there may have been some sexual motive for the search. He asked another sergeant to obtain a statement from Ms Evans. A statement was provided, during the course of which Ms Evans became very emotional. She referred to some touching, and the sergeant who took the statement believed that there may have been a sexual assault.

Ms Evans subsequently provided a detailed account in which she explained how she had been stopped and the way in which she said that her body had been intimately searched. She described that the male officer had spent some time searching the area of her breasts and buttocks with open palms. She thought that he had been driving a black vehicle. That was all set out in a witness statement which she signed.

The investigation was subsequently taken over by the Department of Professional Standards because of the concern that there was either a person impersonating a police officer who was stopping female drivers, or a police officer was doing so. A large scale operation was launched in which all available resources were used. In the week after the allegation was made by Ms Evans, over 1500 hours were spent on the investigation by some 30 or more detectives, with the consequential effect on investigations for other crimes.

On 23 March 2023, Ms Evans provided a video recorded interview. She also exhibited a map and a "Streetview" image of where she had been stopped. On 27 March 2023, she accompanied investigating officers in order to identify the route that she had taken to work on the day in question.

The investigation revealed that a serving Metropolitan Police Officer had been driving a black unmarked police car on 22 March 2023 on the A20, near to the alleged stop and at around the time of the incident. On the evening of 23 March 2023 officers attended the home of that police officer and arrested him for sexual assault. His wife and two young children were present when the officer was placed in handcuffs. He was held in custody overnight before being twice interviewed the following day. He denied the allegations. We have read the Victim Personal Statement. It is apparent that it was a very traumatic time for that officer and his family.

There was in fact no suggestion that Ms Evans and that officer were known to each other. On 24 March 2023, Ms Evans attended an identification parade which included that officer in the line-up. She failed to identify him. The officer was bailed and suspended from duty.

Later examination of data showed that the officer's vehicle could not have been involved in a stop. It was apparent that his vehicle had travelled along the motorway and did not leave the motorway, in order to be in the area where the stop and search were alleged to have occurred.

A further review was undertaken of the automatic number plate recognition systems and CCTV material and that led the investigation to conclude that Ms Evans’ account of having been stopped was in fact false. On 20 April 2023, officers from the Anti-Corruption Command attended the home address of Ms Evans where she in turn was arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice.

Ms Evans was taken to Bexley Police Station where she was interviewed. She was legally represented and provided a prepared statement in which she denied that she had made any false statements. She asserted that she had provided information to the best of her knowledge and recollection. She then declined to answer further questions. Ms Evans was convicted after a trial.

The judge had a sentencing note from both prosecution and defence counsel. There were Victim Personal Statements from the officer and his wife. There were a number of character references placed before the court, and which we have seen, provided by friends, family and former colleagues of Ms Evans, all of which spoke of her positive good character.

In a pre-sentence report, the author set out that while Ms Evans respected the outcome of the trial, she maintained her innocence. The author noted that he would have concerns about her being within a custodial sentence based on the outlined mental health struggles detailed in a psychiatric report prepared by Dr Patel.

In that psychiatric report, Dr Patel concluded that Ms Evans suffered from complex post traumatic stress disorder as a result of a particularly difficult and traumatic upbringing. Although no link was made between that diagnosis and the offending, it was apparent from all of the available material that Ms Evans had suffered abuse both as a child and in later relationships. She had been taken into care. All of that had led overall to the diagnosis of complex PTSD.

The judge accepted the classification agreed by the parties that this was category 1A offending. He referred to what he said was the extraordinary nature of the circumstances which gave rise to the offence. He referred to the psychiatric report and, so far as is material, he said this:

The judge went on to say that for those reasons he reduced the starting point from two years' imprisonment down to 12 months. He concluded that, given the particular nature of the offence, the sentence could not be suspended,.

The sentencing guideline for the offence of perverting the course of justice was effective from 1 October 2023. The first step, as is well known, is to determine the offence category. Ms Evans maintained her conduct for a sustained period of time, which is a culpability A factor. The judge was also satisfied that there was a breach of trust which is a culpability A factor: "Breach of trust or abuse of position or office". In circumstances where Ms Evans was a serving police officer reporting such false matters, in our judgment the judge was perfectly entitled to find that this was an abuse of position or office.

Under category 1 harm, two factors are engaged. The first is: "Serious consequences for an innocent party as a result of the offence (for example time spent in custody/arrest)". In this case, as we know, a police officer who had had nothing to do with this matter but who had happened to travel in a car at around the same time, in around the same area as the alleged stop had taken place, was arrested in front of his family, He was kept in custody for a period of time. He was suspended. The second factor is: "Serious distress caused to an innocent party (for example loss of reputation)". It is apparent from the materials that we have seen that the judge was entitled to find that serious distress was caused to both an innocent party and to his family. There is an overlap on this feature for the police officer, but it did have a separate and important effect on his family.

We turn to step 2, "Starting point and category range" which reads:

Category 1A for this offence has a starting point of four years' custody, and a category range of two to seven years. It is also right to note that in the drop-down box under "custodial sentences" it says:

Accordingly, it is possible to have moved outside the category range, having regard to all of those factors. It seems from the sentencing remarks, that the judge had taken the sentence to the bottom of the range, before then separately taking into account those factors which appear under "Reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation", which is not the approach set out in the guidelines, and risks double counting relevant factors. The important question, however, is whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient.

It was common ground that there were no other statutory aggravating factors or other aggravating factors. The factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation for Ms Evans included these: "No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions". Ms Evans was of course of previous good character before her conviction for this offence of perverting the course of justice.

The next relevant factor reflecting person mitigation was: "Positive character and/or exemplary conduct, regardless of previous convictions". It is apparent that, from a very difficult starting point, Ms Evans had trained and had become a police officer. It is also apparent from the references that she had discharged her duties with obvious skill until she decided to commit this offence.

The third relevant factor was "Mental disorder, learning disability (where not taken into account at step 1)". We have already referred to the psychiatric report in which reference is made to complex PTSD.

A further relevant factor was: "Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives". The evidence shows that Ms Evans has some responsibility for the care of stepchildren. Another relevant factor was: "Difficult and/or deprived background or personal circumstances". It is apparent from all that we have said, and indeed what is contained in the psychiatric report, that Ms Evans came from a background of being in care to be a successful serving police officer. The final relevant mitigating factor was: "Prospects of or in work, training or education". It is relevant to note that, notwithstanding her dismissal from the Police Service and her subsequent release from prison following sentence on 2 March 2026 and before hearing of this reference, Ms Evans has managed to find work again.

There are other features which are relevant to take into account. The first is that Ms Evans lost her job. It is apparent that she demonstrated her unfitness to be a police officer because she lacked the courage to call out her own wrongdoing when she began to lie, but she has suffered consequences for that. The final factor is that we were informed that in the final days of her incarceration before she was released on licence, Ms Evans had been targeted in prison.

The relevant further steps are to consider any factors which indicate a reduction for assistance to the prosecution, which is not applicable. Step 4, "Reduction for a guilty plea" is not applicable. Step 5, "Totality principle" is not applicable, because there was only one offence. Step 6, "Compensation and ancillary orders" is also not applicable.

We return to the real issue, which is whether the sentence imposed by the judge was too low to take into account all of the relevant factors.

We do consider that there were factors which increased the seriousness of this offence because of the fact that there were two high culpability A factors and two category 1 harm factors. We accept that there were very important factors indicating that there should be a reduction for seriousness and to reflect Ms Evans’ personal mitigation.

However, we consider that the judge went too far below the category range in this case. Indeed, he seems to have fallen into error by misdirecting himself on the steps set out in the sentencing guidelines. In our judgment, the appropriate sentence to reflect all the matters in relation to the offending and all the matters particular to Ms Evans, reducing the seriousness and reflecting her personal mitigation, was a sentence of two years' imprisonment.

That then brings us to the very difficult question of whether we should exercise our discretion: not to grant leave; or, if having granted leave, not to increase the sentence.

In our judgment, this is a case where leave should be granted. That is because the judge appears to have made an error in relation to the application of the guideline, which resulted in too low a sentence. Ms Evans has now been released from custody (albeit after a shorter period than might have been expected for a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment). She has reconnected with the family and has obtained employment. In our judgment, however, it is appropriate to increase the sentence from the 12 months' imprisonment that was imposed to the appropriate sentence of two years' imprisonment, even though that will mean that Ms Evans will return to custody for the period that she is directed to serve. This was, as we have indicated, an unusual case, but there were remarkably serious consequences, albeit in circumstances where a lie had snowballed out of control and there was particular personal mitigation available to Ms Evans.

For all those reasons, we grant leave. We allow the Reference and we increase the sentence from 12 months' immediate imprisonment to two years' immediate imprisonment. We direct that Ms Evans surrender to Guildford Police Station by 4 pm today.