R v Foster [2026] EWCA Crim 1088, 7 August 2026 (judgment here)
This appeal case, considering the length of sentence for perverting the course of justice, should operate as a stern warning of how seriously criminal courts will view giving false accounts in anticipation of coronial investigations
The facts
Mrs Froggett, an elderly care home resident died from complications of a fractured femur after an unobserved fall from her wheelchair. The care home manager (a registered nurse), together with two care workers, created and maintained a false account that her wheelchair lap strap had been fastened when Mrs Froggett fell.
That false narrative was set out in documents produced in the knowledge that investigations by the CQC and coronial proceedings were likely to follow her death. It was also repeated in responses sent to the coroner, which went as far as suggesting that the deceased may have unfastened her lap belt herself and that the lap strap’s buckle had become defective or gone missing after the incident.
The deception came to light only because the participants were stupid enough to discuss their falsehoods in the presence of an honest staff member who properly reported the overheard discussions about the fabrication. Approximately six months later fresh accounts were produced admitting that the earlier statements had been false. Indeed it seems that the lap strap had never even been capable of being fastened because the buckle was missing. Their false accounts had clearly included quite despicable victim blaming.
The prosecution(s) and sentence
Foster, the care home manager, was prosecuted by the CQC and was fined £800 after pleading guilty to regulatory offences relating to the care provided to Mrs Froggett. Thereafter in the Crown Court she faced further charges of wilful neglect and perverting the course of justice. There was then a dispute whether the CPS proceeding with the neglect charge after the CQC prosecution on the same facts was an abuse of process. The outcome was that the neglect charge was stayed, at which point Foster immediately pleaded guilty to the remaining count.
At sentence, the judge considered that the offence of perverting the course of justice justified a provisional sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment before credit for her plea. An aggravating factor was that Foster had apparently advised the other staff to lie, although they had willingly done so. The judge allowed only a 20% reduction for the plea, on the basis that Foster could have sought to enter her plea much earlier in the Crown Court proceedings. The resulting sentence was 43 months’ imprisonment.
The Appeal
On appealing her sentence the Court of Appeal agreed that a 20% reduction for plea was appropriate and declined to interfere with that aspect. However, it concluded that the judge had not given sufficient weight to Foster’s substantial personal mitigation – she had been of good character as a nurse for 40 years and showed extreme remorse (she had now been struck off). There had also been an element of double counting when considering the aggravating features.
The Court of Appeal described the original sentence as ‘manifestly excessive’ holding that the appropriate sentence for the offence was four years. Applying the same 20% discount, it substituted a sentence of 38 months’ imprisonment in place of the original 43 months.
Comment
The false narrative in this case survived in writing alone for six months, albeit one might think it would likely have remained intact but for the intervention of the whistleblower. Such a steep sentence should perhaps then be no surprise given the offending would inevitably have distorted the coroner’s ability to determine the true cause of death had it prevailed.
This case must stand as a clear warning to all inquest witnesses that you should never seek to shape the narrative before an inquest. That this falsehood was only in written evidence and was not (yet) perjury under oral examination did not lessen its seriousness. All early written accounts (whether written with or without a statement of truth) should be treated with the same care as oral evidence later given in court under oath. Deliberate attempts to distort the factual record will be taken very seriously and anyone who knowingly gives an inaccurate account following a death risks similar criminal proceedings and will be at risk of a hefty custodial sentence.
All witnesses should be aware that attempts to frustrate the function of His Majesty’s Coroner, even where the deception ultimately fails, might well be followed by a significant period held at His Majesty’s pleasure.