Scott, R. v

In sentencing for facilitating unlawful entry into the United Kingdom, the court should assess the offending by reference to the nature and scale of the operation, its commercial or humanitarian motivation, the offender’s role, the number and relationship of those assisted, and relevant antecedents. A custodial sentence may properly reflect both punishment and deterrence.

A disparity argument does not justify reducing an offender’s sentence merely because a co-offender received undue leniency. The appellate question remains whether the challenged sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive when assessed by reference to that offender’s own conduct and role.

The appellant was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court of doing an act facilitating a breach of immigration law. He had driven a van from the Hook of Holland to Harwich on one occasion. Officers found 13 persons entering the United Kingdom unlawfully concealed behind rotting fruit.

He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He appealed on the grounds that insufficient weight had been given to his good character, work record, limited role and the circumstances of his recruitment. He also relied on the disparity between his sentence and the co-defendant’s five-year total sentence.

The central issue was whether the appellant’s sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of three years’ imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The court applied the seriousness factors identified in R v Van Bin Le and Stark [1999] 1 Cr App R(S) 422. The operation was well organised and profit-driven. The appellant transported 13 people who were strangers to him. These were substantial aggravating features.

3. The sentencing judge had nevertheless recognised that the appellant had been drawn into the operation, had initially been deceived, occupied a lower position than the co-defendant, and had no previous convictions. He had given proper weight to the mitigating material.

4. The co-defendant’s sentences were unduly lenient and could properly have been in double figures. That did not make the appellant’s sentence unjust. The court had to assess the appellant’s own conduct and role, rather than equalise sentences by reducing a sentence which was otherwise proper.

5. Those who participate in the illegal trafficking of people must expect sentences that punish the offender and deter others. There was no basis for appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against a three-year sentence of imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Chelmsford: on 28 September 2004 convicted the appellant of facilitating a breach of immigration law; on 26 November 2004 imposed the sentence under appeal.