Juma, R. v

For possession of a false identity document with intent, the appropriate sentence must reflect both the seriousness of undermining passport integrity and the offender’s personal mitigation. A sentencing range identified for the closely comparable offence of using or holding a false passport may properly guide sentence where the statutory offence is materially similar and carries the same maximum penalty. Where substantial mitigation is present, a sentence at the top of that range may be manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Isleworth Crown Court to possessing a counterfeit British passport with intent, contrary to section 25(1) of the Identity Cards Act 2006. He had presented the document at Heathrow Airport while intending to travel to Canada.

On 19 January 2007, the Crown Court imposed 18 months’ imprisonment, directed that 129 days spent on remand should count towards sentence, and recommended deportation. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge.

He relied on his guilty plea, lack of known previous convictions, intended departure from the United Kingdom, claimed torture and resulting ill-health, and difficult custodial circumstances. The central issue was whether 18 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed against sentence. The sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced by one of 12 months’ imprisonment.

2. The court accepted that false-passport offending is serious. Passports are important documents, their integrity must be maintained, and custodial sentences may be necessary both to mark the offence and to deter others.

3. However, the court regarded the offence under section 25(1) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 as very similar to the false-passport offences considered in R v Kolawole [2004] EWCA Crim 3047. Both carried a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The sentencing range identified there, for a guilty plea by a person of good character, was 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment.

4. The appellant’s mitigating circumstances, including his guilty plea, absence of known previous convictions, health difficulties and the circumstances advanced for holding the passport, required a greater reduction. A sentence at the top of the comparable range was therefore manifestly excessive. Twelve months adequately reflected that mitigation.

5. The direction under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that 129 days on remand count towards sentence remained in force. The recommendation for deportation also stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment: [2007] EWCA Crim 936.
• Isleworth Crown Court: on 19 January 2007, following a guilty plea, imposed 18 months’ imprisonment for an offence under section 25(1) of the Identity Cards Act 2006, with credit for 129 days on remand and a recommendation for deportation.