Case No.
2008/01707/A4
Neutral Citation Number:
[2008] EWCA Crim 2212
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL  DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Date:
Friday 26 September 2008
B e f o r e:
LORD  JUSTICE  HOOPER
MR  JUSTICE  McCOMBE
and
MR  JUSTICE  WILKIE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E G I N A
- v -
PATRICK  PATRICE  DAWKINS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcription by
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone 020-7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr S Stirling
appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr J Carpenter
appeared on behalf of the Crown
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE HOOPER:
1. On 14 December 2007, in the Central Criminal Court, Patrick Patrice Dawkins (now aged 21 but aged 19 at the time of the offence) was convicted by a jury of attempting to do acts tending to and intended to pervert the course of justice. On 7 February 2008 he was sentenced by His Honour Judge McKinnon to three years' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence by leave of the single judge.
2. Tracy Meade had been in a relationship with the appellant since the spring of 2005 and they had lived together. The appellant spent approximately nine months in custody and following his release in May 2006 he began a relationship with 16 year old Kelly Ross. On 31 May 2006 Kelly met with Tracy to discuss the situation. Tracy drove them both to Kelly's flat in order to collect some of the appellant's possessions. They made a second visit to the flat and on that occasion Kelly picked up a knife from the kitchen. The two women then drove to meet the appellant, who was at a friend's house. They dragged him reluctantly into the car and drove off with him to Crystal Palace Park. The two women confronted him about his relationship with both of them. He managed to extricate himself from the situation, got out of the car and returned to his friend's house. Kelly then directed Tracy to the back of some garages where she stabbed her three times and then fled the scene. One of the wounds pierced Tracy's heart and caused her death.
3. The appellant met Kelly later that night and they went to the cinema. On the afternoon of 1 June 2006 the appellant again met up with Kelly Ross before going on to Tracy's house in order to collect more possessions. He was arrested by police nearby and informed of Tracy's death. He replied, "Your'e lying. Tracy's not dead". He admitted that his girlfriend was Kelly Ross. He was thereafter formally interviewed. By the time of the interview he either knew that Kelly had murdered Tracy or alternatively he realised that there was a significant likelihood that Kelly had murdered Tracy. Notwithstanding this, he decided to lie to the police. He denied about the identity of the person who had been with him and Tracy the evening before. In other words he lied to protect Kelly who had in fact been with them.
4. The first interview on 1 June 2006 was an urgent interview (without a solicitor) solely to determine the whereabouts of Kelly. The appellant said that he had been in the car with Tracy but that the other person was an unknown female to whom he gave a name. He went on to describe her as if he did not know her. He admitted meeting Kelly later that night, but said that he did not know exactly where she lived.
5. He was interviewed again the following day. He continued to deny that he knew Kelly's address and maintained his account in relation to the third occupant of the vehicle, namely that it was not Kelly. He was released on bail.
6. On that same day Kelly admitted to the murder of Tracy Meade.
7. When the appellant was interviewed again on 7 November 2006 he admitted that he had lied to the police. He pleaded not guilty and sought to persuade the jury that he did not do that which he had done in order to pervert the course of justice.
8. The appellant has numerous previous convictions for 33 offences, including attempted robbery, taking a motor vehicle without consent from a garage, possession of heroin and numerous motoring matters. He had already served time in custody.
9. In passing sentence the judge said that the appellant had lied during the murder investigation. He had lied about the deceased, a person whom he had known extremely well. The judge said:
"Your lies to the police had the potential to throw the police off the scent as to who the true murderess was at this early and indeed critical stage in the investigation and what aggravates the position is that you persisted in the lie that you told during the formal interviews, or at least some of them, which were read to the jury in the course of the trial."
The judge reached the conclusion that the gravity of the offence was nearer the top end of the scale.
10. It is said on behalf of the appellant that he had no legal advice at that first interview. We see no relevance in that point. It is said rightly that once Kelly had confessed to the murder, then he accepted that he had lied. It is said that the lie did not seriously impede the course of the investigation. The judge seems to have accepted that because he said that the lies had the "potential to throw the police off the scent". It is said that the appellant was aged 19 at the time. That is right, but having regard to his previous convictions he is not unsophisticated with matters connected with criminal investigation and criminal justice.
11. In our view it cannot be said that this sentence was manifestly excessive. This was a serious crime committed during a murder investigation and society requires those who are being interviewed as witnesses in those circumstances not to lie, and in particular not to lie in such a way as potentially to impede the arrest of the person responsible for the crime. This appeal is dismissed.