Mutede, R. v

In sentencing offences involving false immigration-related documents, the court must assess the function of the document and the offender’s underlying immigration position. A guideline sentence for using or possessing a false passport to secure entry to, or remain in, the United Kingdom does not automatically govern a case in which a person lawfully admitted to the country uses false immigration letters and a false National Insurance card solely to obtain work.

Personal mitigation, immediate admissions, a guilty plea and previous good character remain material to the appropriate sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Luton Magistrates’ Court to possessing a false instrument with intent and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. She was committed to Luton Crown Court, where Recorder Blackford imposed concurrent sentences of 14 months’ imprisonment.

She had used counterfeit immigration letters and a counterfeit National Insurance card to obtain employment as a care worker, despite being prohibited from working. She had initially been permitted to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor and was awaiting the outcome of an application for a student visa. She appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, relying on her admissions, guilty plea, good character and the distinction from the false-passport guideline case.

Appeal allowed. The court quashed the concurrent sentences of 14 months’ imprisonment and substituted concurrent sentences of six months’ imprisonment.

1. The sentencing comparison with R v Kolawole [2004] EWCA Crim 3047 required care. That guideline concerned the use or intended use of a false passport, including to obtain entry to, or remain in, the United Kingdom. It indicated a usual range of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment, even after a guilty plea by an offender of good character.

2. The present offending was materially different. The appellant had been permitted to enter the United Kingdom. She used false immigration letters, and a false National Insurance card, to obtain employment rather than using a false passport to gain entry or remain in the country.

3. The court also gave weight to the appellant’s immediate admissions, guilty plea, previous good character and the other mitigating circumstances. Those matters, together with the necessary distinction from the guideline case, made the 14-month sentences excessive. Concurrent terms of six months’ imprisonment were appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent sentences of six months’ imprisonment: [2005] EWCA Crim 3208.
• Luton Crown Court: Recorder Blackford imposed concurrent sentences of 14 months’ imprisonment for possession of a false instrument with intent and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
• Luton Magistrates’ Court: The appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.