Mvumi, R v

A sentencing judge should give reasons for making a recommendation for deportation. A recommendation is not appropriate merely because an offender has committed identity-document and fraud offences. The court must assess whether deportation is necessary and appropriate in the particular circumstances.

Where removal to the offender’s country is prevented by the prevailing policy and conditions there, a deportation recommendation may be inappropriate. In such a case, the recommendation should be quashed even if the custodial sentence is not challenged.

The appellant, a Zimbabwean national, had claimed asylum after arriving in the United Kingdom. His claim and appeal rights had been exhausted, but he could not then be removed to Zimbabwe. Unable lawfully to work, he obtained and used a false Zimbabwean passport, identity documents and bank-account details in another person’s name to obtain work, banking facilities and credit.

At the Crown Court he pleaded guilty to possession of an identity document with intent, fraud by false representation, and possession of an article for the purposes of fraud. He received concurrent sentences of eight months’ imprisonment and a recommendation for deportation. By leave of the single judge, he appealed only against that recommendation.

1. Appeal allowed. The recommendation for deportation was quashed. The appellant did not challenge, and the court did not alter, the concurrent eight-month custodial sentences.

2. The sentencing judge gave no reasons for treating deportation as appropriate. The court referred to Nazari, in which sentencing judges were said to be required to give reasons when making deportation orders. The absence of reasons was therefore a material defect in the sentencing exercise.

3. The court also considered the prevailing position concerning Zimbabwe. The appellant could not be removed there because of conditions in that country. In the analogous Zimbabwean case of Attorney General's Reference Nos 1 and 6 of 2008, this court had regarded a deportation order as absurd in light of the current policy.

4. On those facts, a deportation recommendation was neither necessary nor appropriate. The court therefore quashed that order.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and quashed the recommendation for deportation: [2008] EWCA Crim 2144.
• Crown Court: Following guilty pleas, imposed concurrent terms of eight months’ imprisonment on three fraud and identity-document offences and made a recommendation for deportation.