John, R v

For offences involving false identity documents used to obtain employment, sentence must reflect whether the conduct was intended to undermine immigration control or conceal the offender’s true status. Earlier sentence levels provide guidance but do not displace an individual assessment of the purpose for which the documents were used and the offender’s immigration position. Uncertain immigration status may be a significant mitigating feature. Nevertheless, using false documents to obtain work remains serious conduct and may make an immediate custodial sentence inevitable.

The appellant, a Zimbabwean national whose asylum claim had been refused, pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to two offences of possessing false identity documents with intent and one offence of possessing a false identity document. He had bought and used false documents to register with an employment agency and obtain short periods of work. Two further offences were taken into consideration.

The judge imposed concurrent sentences of 15 months’ imprisonment on the first two offences and six months concurrently on the third. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that his immigration position and the circumstances in which he used the documents required a substantially lower sentence.

1. The appeal was allowed. The concurrent sentences of 15 months’ imprisonment for the first two offences were quashed and replaced by concurrent sentences of eight months. The concurrent six-month sentence for the third offence remained unchanged. The total sentence was therefore eight months’ imprisonment.

2. The court held that an immediate custodial sentence was inevitable. The offences were serious because the appellant had used false documents to obtain employment. Such conduct may strike at immigration policy and ordinarily calls for deterrent sentencing.

3. The court nevertheless required an assessment of the particular immigration context. In Attorney General’s Reference Nos 1 and 6 of 2008 [2008] EWCA Crim 677, the circumstances of Dziruni justified a merciful suspended sentence. The present case differed because the appellant had used two identities, intended to keep his remuneration from the authorities, and had a previous conviction. His uncertain status as a Zimbabwean national remained an important mitigating feature.

4. Kolawole [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 14 remained significant despite not being a guideline decision. R v Mabengo [2008] EWCA 1699 also showed that using false passports to deceive and conceal true status could justify 12 months’ imprisonment. This case fell between those authorities.

5. Having considered all the circumstances, the court concluded that 15 months was longer than necessary and manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a total sentence of eight months’ imprisonment: [2008] EWCA Crim 2022.
• Leeds Crown Court: On 30 April 2008, following guilty pleas, imposed a total sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.