Kolawole, R v

Sentencing indications for false-passport offences must be read by reference to the statutory offence charged. Possession of a false instrument with intent that it be used, contrary to section 5(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, is materially more serious than simple possession under section 5(2).

Earlier guidance for the use of one false passport did not set an enduring range. In light of increased public concern, the usual sentence for using one false passport, or holding one with intent to use it, by a person of good character who pleads guilty, should normally be 12 to 18 months' imprisonment. Multiple passports may justify consecutive sentences where the total remains proportionate.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Tower Bridge Magistrates' Court to two offences of possessing false instruments with intent, and to driving offences. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

At Inner London Crown Court he received eight months' imprisonment for each passport offence, to run consecutively, making 16 months. One passport was forged and the other was a stolen passport bearing the appellant's photograph.

He appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether consecutive sentences totalling 16 months for possession of two false passports with intent to use them were manifestly excessive, having regard to earlier sentencing authorities.

1. Appeal dismissed. A total of 16 months' imprisonment for two false passports held with intent to use them was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court distinguished the three commonly charged passport offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. Using a false instrument under section 3, and possessing one with intent that it be used under section 5(1), each carried a maximum of ten years' imprisonment. Simple possession under section 5(2) carried a maximum of two years. Sentencing guidance had to be read against those differences.

3. R v Daljit Singh [1999] 1 Cr App R(S) 49O concerned the use of a false passport. Its reference to a range of six to nine months was therefore not a general indication for every false-passport offence. Its wording had also caused a possible misunderstanding in R v Siliavski [2000] 1 Cr App R(S) 23.

4. The six-month indication in Siliavski inadequately reflected the culpability of a courier carrying four concealed false passports. It should not be treated as authoritative on the proper level of sentence for such couriers. The court endorsed the criticisms in R v Cheema [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 356 and R v Stanca [2004] 1 Cr App R(S) 265, and treated Cheema as the more appropriate guide.

5. International events and the resulting increase in public concern justified deterrent sentences at a higher level than six years earlier. R v Balasubramaniam [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 57, which had followed the earlier range, was no longer authoritative. For one false passport used under section 3, or possessed with intent to use it under section 5(1), the usual range, even after a guilty plea by a person of good character, was 12 to 18 months. The appellant had two such passports, so consecutive eight-month terms were proper.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Inner London Crown Court Sentenced the appellant to eight months' imprisonment on each of two section 5(1) offences, consecutively, totalling 16 months.
• Tower Bridge Magistrates' Court The appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.