Velev, R v

Sentencing for conspiracies to manufacture false identity documents requires substantial weight to the conspiracy’s intended criminal purpose, the offender’s role, and the gain made or likely to be made. Sentences in superficially similar cases are fact-sensitive and are not reliable precedents where the scale, sophistication, potential profit or likely harm materially differs. A consecutive sentence may properly be imposed for a distinct earlier conspiracy, provided the court applies the principle of totality.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Harrow Crown Court to two separate conspiracies involving articles and materials designed or adapted for making false identity documents. The first concerned a sophisticated document-manufacturing operation with substantial potential profits. The second arose from earlier offending involving false documents.

He received four and a half years’ imprisonment for the first conspiracy and a consecutive 18 months’ imprisonment for the second. He appealed on the ground that the total sentence of six years was manifestly excessive, relying in particular on his asserted role as a worker rather than an organiser, his guilty plea and sentencing comparators.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of six years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. In sentencing this type of conspiracy, the court must give substantial weight to what the conspiracy was intended to achieve, the role of the individual offender, and the benefit obtained or likely to be obtained. The operation was sophisticated and well organised. Its products could facilitate false identities, money laundering and other criminal activity. Its potential harm and profits were very substantial.

3. Although the appellant was not the principal organiser, he played a significant role in a major conspiracy. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat a post-trial sentence of about six and a half years as appropriate for workers and lieutenants, with a one-third reduction for the guilty plea. The four-and-a-half-year sentence for the first count was therefore proper.

4. R v Munir [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 27 and Attorney-General's Reference, Nos 118 and 119 of 2006 R v Jesus (Lucas Fernandez) & De Oliveira (Werleson Roderigo) [2007] EWCA Criminal 121 were fact-sensitive sentencing comparisons. The potential profits in this case materially distinguished it from them.

5. The earlier conspiracy was distinct and required separate punishment. A consecutive sentence of 18 months, imposed with the principle of totality in mind, was proper.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the aggregate sentence of six years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Harrow: on 11 January 2008, imposed four and a half years’ imprisonment for the first conspiracy and a consecutive 18 months for the second.