Gonsalves, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1408

Case No 200701250 A8[2007] EWCA Crim 1408
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Friday, 25 May 2007
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE HUGHES
MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS
SIR JOHN BLOFELD
Between
R E G I N ACrown-v-
Between
JOANNE MARIE GONSALVES
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR J SEELEY appeared for Applicant
J U D G M E N T
[1]MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: On 5th December 2006 at Cambridge Crown Court this appellant pleaded guilty to doing an act or acts tending and intended to pervert the court of public justice. On 9th February 2007 she was sentenced to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment. She appeals by leave of the single judge.[2]At about 11.20 in the evening of Saturday 3rd June 2006 the appellant's partner, a man called French, murdered Christopher Garford. The murder took place in the Wisbech Arms in Wisbech in Norfolk. French was the landlord and Garford was a customer. The appellant, as French's partner, worked in the pub and she was working there when the murder happened. The incident started because Garford threw a glass which hit the appellant on the forehead, causing superficial cuts and bruising. As a result of this assault on his partner French completely lost his self-control. He grabbed a knife, went round the public side of the bar and attacked Garford with the knife, stabbing him to death by inflicting 30 wounds to the neck and the head. He was later convicted of murder and is serving a life sentence.[3]The appellant was, as the judge accepted, in fear of French; and as you would expect after these events had taken place she was considerably shocked by what had happened. In that state she helped clear up some of the things in the pub which might have incriminated Mr French before dialling 999. On the phone she told a false story of two foreigners having come into the public house and having committed the murder. When the police arrived at the public house, she went round with them to a local nightclub purportedly in the hope of identifying the fictitious foreigners. Her behaviour at the time suggested, as was accepted by the judge, that she was still affected by the considerable shock that she had suffered at witnessing these awful events. A ten-year-old daughter of French also told a false story to the police, but the judge accepted that that was at the instigation of French and nothing to do with this appellant; and there is little doubt that it was at French's instigation that this appellant told the false story that she told.[4]In the course of their investigation the police discovered that the appellant was lying, because other witnesses who had been at the public house came forward and described what had actually happened. As a result of their discoveries the appellant was re-interviewed by police but she stuck to her story for several days before refusing to answer any more questions.[5]She is a lady of 29 years of age, of previous good character. There were before the judge, as there are before us, glowing testimonials. She was otherwise a decent, hard-working woman. She comes from a supportive family. She had done nothing to bring about the events of that night. She was wholly innocent of them. As the judge accepted, there was no reason to believe that she would ever be before a court again. In passing sentence the learned judge said this:
"This offence clearly passes the custody threshold. You knew that a man lay dead in your public house. You sought to throw the Police off the scent, and to send them looking elsewhere, possibly incriminating wholly-innocent people who matched the description you gave the Police. You were a respectable young woman, whose word the Police would more readily accept than someone with a criminal background. You persisted in misleading the Police. You lied not only to the Ambulance woman over the telephone and to the police who attended that night, and the Police who went with you to the night-club, but in the course of the significant witness interview which I have seen on video, and the transcript which I have read with care. And also you lied in the course of those Police interviews, when you had been cautioned and arrested. The word must go out from this Court that those who deliberately and persistently lie in the course of a murder enquiry, as you did, seeking to absolve from involvement the killer of Christopher Garford - describing him as a hero, who sought to get between the foreigners and Christopher Garford, and to save him from that attack - that those who do that face condign punishment."
He then went on to pass the sentence of two-and-a-half years' imprisonment.[6]With not one word of what the judge said does this court disagree. Those remarks are wholly appropriate. The question for this court is whether the undoubted need for a deterrent sentence can still be achieved by imposing a shorter sentence as an act of mercy on this appellant. Clearly the instigator of the offence was French. He was a man of whom she was afraid and by whom she was dominated. As Mr Seeley has rightly said to us, she entered initially into these lies in a state of shock. She carried on to tell those lies when she should have told the truth. But perhaps, as Mr Seeley said, it is not easy to withdraw from the lies once you have started, and it is to be noted that she did not go so far as to actually identify any of the people whom she saw in the nightclub.[7]We have had, which the judge does not have, the benefit of a prison report and also a letter from a Dr Spivac dealing with anxiety and panic attacks which she is suffering from while she is in prison. Despite those, she has been an exemplary prisoner.[8]After considerable hesitation, in all the circumstances we think we are in a position to extend mercy to her today and to reduce the sentence that she must serve to one of 18 months. We quash the sentence of two-and-a-half years. We replace it with a sentence of 18 months. The 44 days that she served on remand before the initial sentence will count towards that sentence as well, and to that extent this appeal is allowed.