Buriticia-Castrillon & Anor, R v

Sentencing for offences involving false passports or identity documents must reflect the purpose of their use and their potential effect on immigration control or other systems of trust. A false passport used to gain entry to the United Kingdom ordinarily attracts a substantial immediate custodial sentence. Use solely as false identification to obtain something to which the offender is otherwise entitled may fall below that range.

A recommendation for deportation requires an individual assessment. The sentencing judge must balance the seriousness of the offence against the personal circumstances and other factors relating to that defendant. Seriousness alone cannot justify the recommendation.

Two applications concerning passport-type documents were heard together.

Jorge Albeiro Buriticia-Castrillon pleaded guilty at Croydon Magistrates’ Court to seeking leave to enter or remain by deception. The Crown Court at Croydon imposed 14 months’ imprisonment and recommended deportation. He challenged both the sentence and that recommendation.

Rita Dupe Omotade pleaded guilty at Woolwich Crown Court to possessing a false identity document with intent, contrary to Identity Cards Act 2006. She had used a false Nigerian passport as identification when seeking to cash a cheque. She challenged her 15-month sentence.

The central issues were the proper sentencing level for the respective uses of false documents and whether the deportation recommendation had been made after the required individual assessment.

1. The applications succeeded in part. The court refused leave to appeal against Buriticia-Castrillon’s 14-month sentence, but quashed the recommendation for his deportation. It allowed Omotade’s sentence appeal and substituted ten months’ imprisonment for 15 months.
2. Buriticia-Castrillon had used his partner’s forged passport and forged supporting documents to assist an application intended to deceive the Home Office. Although his participation was said to be secondary, the sentencing judge was entitled to regard the conduct as a serious example of an offence contrary to Immigration Act 1971, section 24 A. The sentence was high in relation to the two-year maximum, but there was no basis for appellate intervention.
3. Applying R v Mabengo and Others [2008] All ER 240, a recommendation for deportation must be made after considering the defendant individually and balancing offence seriousness against the relevant personal circumstances. No material beyond the offence itself supported the recommendation in Buriticia-Castrillon’s case. It was therefore improper and was quashed.
4. For Omotade, the court treated false passports as inherently serious because their use may disrupt immigration control and systems of trust. The usual 12-to-18-month benchmark for a false passport used to obtain entry did not govern without regard to purpose. Omotade used one false passport as identification when cashing a cheque to which she was entitled. That placed her case at, or slightly below, the bottom of the R v Kolawole range. The special facts justified ten months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused leave to appeal against Buriticia-Castrillon’s sentence but allowed his appeal against the recommendation for deportation. It allowed Omotade’s sentence appeal and substituted ten months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Croydon: Buriticia-Castrillon was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment for seeking leave to enter or remain by deception and was recommended for deportation.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: Omotade was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for possession of a false identity document with intent.
• Croydon Magistrates’ Court: Buriticia-Castrillon pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.