Rahim, R v

[2008] EWCA Crim 1679

Case details

Case citations
[2008] EWCA Crim 1679
Court
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judgment date
14 July 2008
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Criminal Sentencing False identity documents
Keywords
sentence appeal manifestly excessive sentence forged residence permit false identity documents pecuniary advantage by deception concurrent sentences remand custody credit
Outcome
appeal allowed in part (sentence reduced to nine months’ imprisonment concurrently)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

In sentencing for possession and use of forged identity documents, the nature of the document is material to the seriousness of the offending. A sentence appropriate where the forged document is a passport may be manifestly excessive where the document is instead a residence permit. A previous sentencing decision should not be treated as a guideline unless it is one.

Factual background

The appellant, an Iraqi national who had entered the United Kingdom illegally and been refused asylum, pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to possessing false identity documents with intent and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. He had used forged and altered residence documents to obtain employment and benefits to which he was not entitled.

On 2 May 2008, the Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of 12 and 15 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, relying on Mutede [2006] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 22. The issue was whether the concurrent 15-month sentence was manifestly excessive.

Held

  1. Appeal allowed to the extent of reducing sentence. The Court held that the 15-month concurrent sentence was manifestly excessive. It quashed that sentence and substituted concurrent sentences of nine months’ imprisonment on both counts.

  2. Mutede [2006] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 22 was not a guideline case. The Court also stressed that its own decision was not intended to be a guideline.

  3. The seriousness of the forged document was a material sentencing consideration. Had the document been a passport, the sentence imposed would have been unimpeachable. The documents used here were residence documents, including an altered card and a forged residence permit, and did not justify a term as long as 15 months.

  4. The 30 days spent in custody on remand continued to count under section 240.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of substituting concurrent nine-month sentences: [2008] EWCA Crim 1679.
  • Crown Court at Leeds: Following guilty pleas, imposed concurrent terms of 12 months and 15 months’ imprisonment on 2 May 2008.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
appeal allowed in part (sentence reduced to nine months’ imprisonment concurrently)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.