Case No: 2004/4246/A3 
Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWCA Crim 2400
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2 

Date: Wednesday, 18 August 2004
 
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE HOOPER 
MR JUSTICE GRIGSON
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON 
- - - - - -
R E G I N A 

-v- 

SUNSHES NKESHA PIKE-WILLIAMS 
 
- - - - - - -
 
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -
MR D LEWIS appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT 
 - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T  

1.	LORD JUSTICE HOOPER:  (To the appellant) We are going to make a conditional discharge for a period of one year. Do you understand?  Counsel will explain to you what that means.
2.	MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON:  On 15th June 2004 at Southwark Crown Court before His Honour Judge Dodgson, the appellant pleaded guilty to a count of misconduct in a public office and on 13th July 2004 was sentenced by that judge to two months' imprisonment.  She was released on bail when leave for this appeal was granted by the single judge on 6th August 2004, so that at that date she had served almost one month and almost completed her sentence.  As we have mentioned, she appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.
3.	The brief facts are that the appellant was employed by the Metropolitan Police as a station reception officer.  Whilst there she accessed secure terminals and viewed confidential information which she was not entitled to do.  That information related to her own associates and friends.  The basis of the plea was that she had not disclosed to them, or indeed to anyone, what information was held on the police computer relating to them.  The offence took place between 9th December 2001 and 13th August 2002.  
4.	As has been mentioned, there was a written basis of plea to the effect that her searches on a number of people were motivated by idle curiosity, but the information that she accessed was not passed to anyone and that she did not foresee or intend harm to the Metropolitan Police as a result of her actions.  
5.	It is not surprising that she is a lady of previous good character.  She was born on 2nd September 1982.  The effect of her conviction and indeed the sentence on her was obviously significant.  There were a number of references relating to her and she had the benefit of a positive probation officer's report.  
6.	The judge in sentencing, however, referred to the harm that had been done to the Police Service as a result of her actions, resulting in a lack of trust in the passing of confidential and sensitive information to the police station where she served.  We appreciate that in the circumstances of this case, notwithstanding that the appellant intended no harm to the Police Service, it is not surprising that harm results.  
7.	We have been referred by Mr Lewis, who represents the appellant, to the decision of this court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, Gage and Moses JJ in the case of Nazir [2003] EWCA Crim. 901.  In that case a police officer who had sought effectively to pervert the course of duty by destroying a fixed penalty notice which had been issued in respect of a friend, had his sentence of three months imposed by the judge trial reduced to one month.  That was a case in which there were consequences or intended consequences of the breach of trust on the part of the defendant in question.  In this case there were, on the basis of plea, no such consequences.  We feel compelled to conclude on the basis of that authority therefore that this case did not pass the custody threshold.  
8.	The question therefore arises what is to be done in the present circumstances?  Had this case come to us at trial we would have been disposed to have passed a community punishment order and a significant one.  That is a course which we do not think is appropriate in the present circumstances, having regard to the fact that the appellant served virtually all of her sentence.  In those circumstances, as has already been mentioned, we propose to quash the sentence of imprisonment and there will be a conditional discharge for 12 months. 
9.	LORD JUSTICE HOOPER:  (To the appellant) Do you understand?  You made a very silly mistake.  Let us hope it is the last you ever make.