Cox & Anor, R v

A sentence for sustained and sophisticated fraud involving the supply of workers not entitled to work in the United Kingdom, forged immigration documents, and dishonest use of work-permit schemes was not manifestly excessive merely because the workers came voluntarily, were properly treated, or the offenders had some personal mitigation. Deterrence may properly carry substantial weight, particularly where the offending is persistent, commercially motivated and harmful to the integrity of immigration controls.

Equal sentences may be justified for participants in a joint enterprise where the trial judge was entitled to find that each bore equal responsibility. An eight-year disqualification under section 2 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was within the sentencing judge’s discretion.

Following a four-month trial at Canterbury Crown Court, Victor Cox and Jayson Cox were convicted of conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to use false instruments, and two conspiracies to facilitate entry into the United Kingdom. They operated companies supplying temporary agricultural workers. They falsely represented that workers were lawfully entitled to work, used forged immigration papers, and made dishonest applications under work-permit and training schemes.

Each appellant received concurrent sentences of seven years’ imprisonment and an eight-year directors’ disqualification. They appealed against sentence, contending that the terms were manifestly excessive and that Jayson, as Victor’s son and subordinate, should have received less. The central issue was whether the sentences, including the disqualification, were excessive in principle or length.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The Court held that concurrent seven-year terms were not manifestly excessive for either appellant.

2. The offending was bold, persistent and motivated by greed. It involved several distinct aspects of criminality: dishonest representations to agricultural contractors, extensive use of forged documents, and manipulation of lawful immigration schemes. The businesses exposed contractors to serious commercial risk and helped create a class of workers operating outside the protection of the law.

3. Deterrence was properly a significant sentencing consideration, particularly in relation to this form of offending in Kent. There was no reduction for guilty pleas. The fact that workers had come voluntarily, were treated properly, and were generally already in the country on forged documents did not materially reduce the seriousness of the appellants’ conduct.

4. Although Victor Cox was the prime mover, the sentencing judge had heard a four-month trial and was entitled to treat Jayson Cox as equally responsible. Jayson had been a willing and enthusiastic participant and had sought to give the enterprise an appearance of respectability.

5. The Court was not persuaded that the eight-year disqualification imposed under section 2 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was too long in the exercise of the judge’s discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeals against sentence dismissed in [2004] EWCA Crim 2467.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 16 March 2004, following a four-month trial, both appellants were convicted and each received concurrent seven-year sentences and an eight-year directors’ disqualification.