Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Archer loses appeal against his conviction and sentence in newspaper perjury case

Kim Sengupta
Tuesday 23 July 2002 00:00 BST

Jeffrey Archer lost his High Court appeal against his conviction and sentence for perjury and perverting the course of justice.

Three Appeal Court judges ruled that the guilty verdict and the four-year sentence for the former deputy chairman of the Tory party should stand.

Yesterday's ruling came a year after Archer's public downfall at the end of the Old Bailey trial, and almost 15 years after his High Court libel victory over newspaper claims that he had sex with prostitute Monica Coghlan.

The immediate effect for the peer is that he will have to repay the money he was awarded from the Daily Star at the libel trial. The £500,000 in damages, added with costs and interest is believed to now total about £2.9m. Archer is said to have already agreed terms to pay the News of the World around £350,000 for the £50,000 he received at the time over claims that he had attempted to pay off Ms Coghlan to leave the country.

Prisoner FF8282 was not present for the hearing at Court No 5. However, his wife, Mary, arrived in the afternoon to join their two sons, James and William.

Lord Justice Rose, sitting with Mr Justice Colman and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton, refused Archer's application for leave to appeal against conviction. After hearing submissions from Archer's counsel, Nicholas Purnell, that the sentence was too severe, Lord Justice Rose said: "The fundamental question is whether a total sentence of four years for his criminality can be regarded as manifestly excessive. In our judgement, it cannot.''

Lady Archermuttered under her breath and shook her head. Afterwards, in a statement issued through "Lord Archer's office'', she said: "We would like to express grave disappointment with all aspects of today's result. We hold to the view that the 2001 trial was unfairly conducted and the sentence was manifestly excessive.''

Mr Purnell had argued that the judge at the Old Bailey trial, Mr Justice Potts, had been wrong not to sever the charges between Archer and his co- defendant, Ted Francis, who was cleared of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Counsel also maintained Mr Justice Potts had repeatedly unnecessarily pointed out that Archer failed to give evidence on his own behalf, and that he failed to adequately explain Archer's defence to the jury.

Afterwards, Archer's legal team refused to discuss whether they were exploring taking the case to Europe. Mr Justice Potts had recommended that Archer, the man who wanted to be mayor of London, should serve at least two years of his sentence before being considered for parole.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in