Okhotnikov, R. v

For offences involving false identity documents carrying a ten-year maximum sentence, the sentencing guidance in Kolawole remains appropriate. Multiple documents, commercial dealing, persistence, and an intended use to evade immigration controls can justify a sentence above the usual range for a single false passport.

When considering a recommendation for deportation, the court must assess whether the offender’s continued presence would be detrimental. It must balance the seriousness and future implications of the offending against personal and family mitigation, while giving proper weight to public order. An appellate court will not interfere merely because another tribunal might have reached a different conclusion; the decision must be plainly wrong.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Southampton to four offences of possessing false identity documents under the Identity Cards Act 2006. On 21 February 2008, Judge Burford QC imposed concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment. On 29 February 2008, after notice had been given, the judge recommended the appellant for deportation.

The appellant had acted as an intermediary in supplying two false Lithuanian passports and two false driving licences to undercover police officers. He appealed both the length of the sentence and the deportation recommendation. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the judge had correctly assessed whether the appellant’s continued presence would be detrimental to the United Kingdom.

1. Both appeals were dismissed. The concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment were firm but not manifestly excessive.
2. Kolawole [2005] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 14 provided appropriate sentencing guidance because the relevant offences under the Identity Cards Act 2006 also carried a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment. That authority identified a usual range of 12 to 18 months for a single false passport, even after a guilty plea by an offender of good character. The appellant’s case was materially more serious. It involved four false documents, commercial dealing over three weeks, and an intended circulation of documents capable of facilitating unlawful entry or residence.
3. On the deportation recommendation, the court applied the approach explained in Benabbas [2006] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 94. The judge had to balance the aggravating features and prospective implications of the offending against the appellant’s personal and family mitigation, and decide whether his continued presence would be detrimental in the public interest. Dealing in false passports and driving documents undermined public order and confidence in the passport system. It was capable of demonstrating a future threat notwithstanding the appellant’s previous good character, lawful entry, remorse, family support and low assessed risk of reoffending.
4. The sentencing judge had asked the right questions and had taken the favourable material into account. His conclusion that the appellant’s continued presence would be detrimental was plainly open to him. The recommendation for deportation therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — By [2008] EWCA Crim 1190, dismissed the appeals against sentence and the recommendation for deportation.
• Crown Court at Southampton — On 21 February 2008 imposed concurrent two-year sentences following guilty pleas to four false-identity-document offences. On 29 February 2008 the judge recommended deportation.