Adebayo, R. v

For sentencing offences involving false identity documents, a materially lower sentence may be justified where a person lawfully present in the United Kingdom uses false documents solely to obtain work. That distinction does not assist an offender who has used, or remains in the country with, a false passport.

A single false passport will usually attract a sentence of twelve to eighteen months’ imprisonment, even after a guilty plea by an offender of good character. The appropriate sentence within that range depends on the circumstances. A sentence outside it may be manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Snaresbrook Crown Court to two counts of possessing identity documents with intent to deceive. He had produced a false Nigerian passport and National Insurance card to an employment agency while seeking work. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each count concurrently and was recommended for deportation.

He appealed against sentence, relying principally on R v Mutede [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 22 and R v Kolawole [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 13. The issue was whether his use of the documents warranted a sentence below the usual range for a false passport.

1. Appeal allowed as to sentence. The sentence of two years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. It was quashed and replaced by concurrent sentences of fifteen months’ imprisonment.
2. R v Mutede [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 22 did not justify a six-month sentence. That case concerned a person with a genuine passport and a legitimate right to be in the United Kingdom who used false immigration documents to obtain work. The appellant had used a false passport and had remained unlawfully in the country. There was no material sentencing distinction between using a false passport to enter the country and using it to remain and obtain employment.
3. R v Kolawole [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 13, although not a guideline decision, gave applicable guidance. A single false passport will usually merit twelve to eighteen months’ imprisonment, notwithstanding a guilty plea and good character. The appellant’s conduct was indistinguishable from that authority and did not fall at the bottom of the range.
4. The court took account of the comparison with R v Dogan [2007] EWCA Crim 110, where the use of false documents after unlawful entry did not reduce the seriousness of the offence. Time served was to be credited. The application for leave to appeal out of time against the recommendation for deportation was withdrawn.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2007] EWCA Crim 878, the court allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent sentences of fifteen months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 15 January 2007, following guilty pleas to two counts of possessing identity documents with intent to deceive, Judge Pardoe QC imposed concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment and recommended deportation.