Case No: 200107169/X2
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Crim 800
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Date: Wednesday 20th March 2002
B E F O R E :

LORD JUSTICE JUDGE

MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN

and

MR JUSTICE FIELD

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

R E G I N A

- v -

Neil Dexter SOOKOO

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040   Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - -

MR A BELL appeared on behalf of the Appellant

- - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT

20th March 2002
1.	MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN: On 30th November 2001 in the Crown Court at Maidstone before His Honour Judge Neligan, this appellant, Neil Dexter Sookoo, pleaded guilty to a count of theft and a count of perverting the course of justice. For the offence of theft he was given six months' imprisonment concurrent to a sentence he was already serving and on the second count, perverting the course of justice, nine months' imprisonment consecutive to the first count, a total therefore of 15 months' imprisonment.
2.	He now appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.
3.	The facts are very short. On the afternoon of 21st July 2001 a security controller at a department store in Chatham was alerted to the appellant's activities. He looked at what he was doing on a close circuit television camera and saw him carrying a large box running away from the store. He and a colleague gave chase. When the appellant saw them he dropped the box, which contained a set of saucepans worth £99 which he had stolen from the store. The box was recovered. After a long fast chase he was detained, taken back to the store and was arrested by the police. 
4.	When the police came he told them his name was Gavin Campbell and his date of birth 6th March 1979. He was interviewed and gave an innocent explanation as to his possession of the saucepans. He was charged and released on bail, the police at that stage believing that his name was Campbell.
5.	However, subsequent investigations revealed that he had given a false name. On 23rd October 2001 he was rearrested under his correct name. He was interviewed and he admitted the offence.
6.	The appeal is based on one simple submission. There is no challenge to the six months for the theft, but it is submitted that a nine month sentence for perverting the course of justice was manifestly excessive, the sentence was too long and it should not have been ordered to run consecutively. We are of the view that that submission is correct.
7.	We propose to alter the sentence, but before we do so the court will say this. It is the experience of the court, confirmed by counsel appearing today for the appellant from his experience, that counts for perverting the course of justice appear with increasing frequency in indictments along with counts for the principal offence or offences. It seems to us that in many cases these counts are quite unnecessary and only serve to complicate the sentencing process. Where, as here, an offender had attempted to hide his identity and inevitably failed, the prosecutors should not include a specific count of perverting the course of justice. Such conduct may only serve to aggravate the original offence and the judge may well think it right to increase the sentence by an appropriate length.
8.	We would say this, however, there must be cases where there are serious aggravating features in the attempt to pervert the course of justice. There will be cases where a great deal of police time and resources are involved in putting the matter right, or there may be cases where innocent members of the public have their names given and they have been the subject of questioning and even detention. That is not the situation in this case. This was an unsophisticated attempt which was doomed to failure. His true identity soon was discovered.
9.	In the judgment of this court, the proper sentence, in all the circumstances of this case, was six months' imprisonment. The sentence of nine months' imprisonment for this particular example of perverting the course of justice was far too long in the circumstances and the appropriate sentence would have been three months' imprisonment. We quash the sentence of nine months and substitute a sentence of three months' imprisonment and order that to run concurrently with the sentence of six months. To that extent this appeal is allowed.