Court of Appeal
Criminal Division
Published April 12, 2007
Regina v Hardy
Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 2007)
Before Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hedley and Mr Justice Pitchers
Judgment March 7, 2007

Police officers had to realise that accessing the police national computer for an improper purpose was an offence that required an immediate prison sentence.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so stated in allowing an application by the Attorney-General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient a prison sentence of 28 weeks, suspended for two years, and 300 hours of unpaid work imposed on James Andrew Hardy by Judge Pugsley at Derby Crown Court on December 8, 2006 following his plea of guilty to misfeasance in a public office. A prison sentence of nine months was substituted. Mr Adrian Darbishire for the Attorney-General; Mr John Lloyd-Jones for the offender.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the judgment of the court, said that the offender, a serving police constable, was charged with a co-defendant, Martin Jolley, who had pleaded guilty to counselling and procuring him to commit the offence.

The offender had used the police national computer system to down-load information on three people. He gave that information to Jolley, a known criminal whose record included offences of violence, in order to enable Jolley to take the law into his own hands by dealing with those who had, so he believed, committed offences against himself or a close friend.

It must have been obvious to the offender that there was a serious risk that Jolley would subject those men to physical violence.

The offence required an immediate sentence of imprisonment; its seriousness left no proper alternative.

Furthermore, this was one of those offences where it was realistic to include a deterrent element in a sentence.

Accessing police computer information for an improper purpose was an offence that involved deliberation. It must be made quite clear to police officers that if they committed that offence they risked dire consequences.

The minimum prison sentence that would have been appropriate, giving credit for the guilty plea, was 18 months. However, the sentence imposed had included 300 hours of unpaid work, and the offender had discharged that obligation in speedy and exemplary fashion. Also, while awaiting trial, he had served the equivalent of a 10-week sentence of imprisonment and a four-month curfew. A prison sentence of nine months was substituted.

Solicitors: Treasury Solicitor; Broadbents, Derby.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones