Ogunyemi, R. v

For an offence involving the use of one false passport contrary to section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, the applicable guideline ordinarily provides a sentence of 12 to 18 months even for an offender of good character who pleads guilty. A sentencing judge nevertheless retains a discretion to depart from a guideline where the particular facts justify it.

On an application for leave to appeal sentence, the Court will not interfere merely because mitigation is advanced. It will respect the trial judge’s assessment where the judge heard the evidence and was entitled to conclude that the case did not justify departure from the guideline.

The applicant was convicted after trial at Croydon Crown Court of using a false instrument with intent, contrary to section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. He had produced a false passport in his wife’s name when applying for a national insurance number. He was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

Having been refused leave by the Single Judge, he renewed his application to the Full Court. He contended that the judge should have obtained a pre-sentence report, gave insufficient weight to his good character, imposed a sentence above the applicable guideline, and should have departed from it because his wife in fact held a genuine passport.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentencing judge was entitled to proceed without a pre-sentence report. He had heard the applicant give evidence at trial, including evidence relevant to good character and community involvement, and there was no identified feature for which a report would have assisted.

2. The Court applied the guideline in R v Kolawale [2004] EWCA Crim 3047. For the use of one false passport contrary to section 3, it stated that the usual range, even after a guilty plea by a person of good character, was 12 to 18 months. A sentence of 20 months after a contested trial was therefore well within the sentencing approach indicated by that guideline.

3. A judge retains a discretion to depart from sentencing guidelines where the facts of the individual case merit it. The applicant’s reliance on the later production of a genuine passport in his wife’s name did not require such a departure. The prevalence of false-passport offending and the need for deterrent sentences were material considerations. The trial judge was particularly well placed to assess whether the circumstances justified a departure and was entitled to conclude that they did not.

4. There was accordingly no proper basis for appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused: [2006] EWCA Crim 3163.
• Croydon Crown Court: convicted after trial of using a false instrument with intent contrary to section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.