Carneiro, R v

For possession of a false identity document used to obtain work in breach of immigration conditions, an immediate custodial sentence will ordinarily be appropriate. The offence undermines immigration control and may facilitate access to further official systems and benefits.

There is no absolute bar to suspending such a sentence, and no requirement for exceptional circumstances. However, where immediate custody is ordinarily warranted, consistency requires a good reason to suspend it. Ordinary features, including self-support through low-paid work and sad personal circumstances, will not necessarily provide that reason.

The appellant, a Brazilian national who had lawfully entered the United Kingdom as a visitor, overstayed and was prohibited from working. To open a bank account for wages from cleaning work, she used a false Portuguese identity card bearing her photograph. She used it again when seeking a PIN number and was arrested.

She pleaded guilty to two offences under section 25(5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006. His Honour Judge Cripps QC initially imposed concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment, then reduced them to concurrent terms of six months after considering Mutede [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 22. With the judge’s encouragement, she appealed on the ground that the custodial sentence should have been suspended.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent sentences of six months’ imprisonment were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The court accepted that offences involving false identity documents cover a range of seriousness. The differing maximum penalties for sections 25(1) and 25(5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 justify a general distinction between them. They do not, however, require every section 25(1) offence to attract a greater sentence than every section 25(5) offence. The particular facts remain material.

3. The present offending was serious because the appellant had obtained entry on conditions which prohibited employment, then used false documentation to obtain work while unlawfully remaining in the country. Such conduct is easy to replicate and is inimical to effective immigration control. Employment may also facilitate obtaining a National Insurance number and access to welfare benefits. The appellant need not have intended those further consequences for them to form part of the context in which the offence is treated seriously.

4. There was no absolute embargo on suspending a sentence for this type of offence, nor any statutory requirement of exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, once immediate custody is recognised as the ordinary sentence, a judge needs a good reason to depart from it in an individual case, in the interests of consistency.

5. The appellant’s self-support, the lowly nature of her work, and her sad personal history were sympathetic features. They were also features commonly encountered where false documents are used to obtain employment by a person unlawfully in the country. They did not justify suspending the sentence. The six-month term, already reduced after Mutede [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 22, was as lenient as the circumstances permitted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — granted leave and dismissed the appeal. It upheld concurrent six-month terms as neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Sentencing court — His Honour Judge Cripps QC accepted guilty pleas to two offences under section 25(5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006. He initially imposed 12-month concurrent terms, then reduced them to concurrent six-month terms after considering Mutede [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 22.