Pangetti & Anor, R. v

For offending involving false identity documents used to obtain work, immediate custody will ordinarily be required because deterrence and sentencing consistency are important. A court need not identify exceptional circumstances before suspending a short custodial sentence, but it must identify a good reason for doing so.

The serious and exceptional effect of imprisonment on dependent children may provide that reason. Where a severely disabled child is wholly dependent on the offenders and immediate custody would create grave consequences for the family, compassion may justify suspended sentences despite the usual deterrent considerations.

The applicants, a married couple from Zimbabwe, appealed sentences imposed after guilty pleas to offences including using a false instrument, obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and fraud. They had used forged documents to obtain employment while their asylum applications and appeals were pursued. Mr Pangetti received 12 months’ imprisonment and Mrs Pangetti received 18 months.

The court considered the appropriate length of sentence and whether the sentences should be suspended. The central issue was whether the exceptional needs of the applicants’ children, particularly their severely disabled younger daughter, gave good reason to suspend sentences for offending of this kind.

1. Disposition. The court granted Mrs Pangetti an extension of time, gave both applicants leave to appeal, and allowed the appeals. Each sentence was reduced to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with a requirement of 100 hours’ unpaid work to be completed within 12 months.
2. Immediate custody is ordinarily appropriate for the use of false documents to obtain work, even where the offending was motivated by the need to support a family. Deterrence is an important sentencing consideration. However, immediate custody is not invariably required. The court relied on Attorney-General’s Reference Nos 1 and 6 of 2008 [2008] EWCA Crim 677 and R v Carneiro [2007] EWCA Crim 2170 as showing that an appropriately short sentence may sometimes be suspended.
3. It was unnecessary to identify exceptional circumstances as a formal threshold for suspension. The question was whether there was a good reason to suspend in this kind of case. The applicants’ younger child had profound disabilities and was wholly dependent on her parents for basic living and movement. The likely consequences for both children if both parents were immediately imprisoned gave the case an exceptionally strong humanitarian dimension. That consideration outweighed the general need for deterrence and consistency.
4. There was no proper basis for sentencing the wife more severely than the husband. Their prompt guilty pleas also required full credit. Eight months was the appropriate custodial term for each applicant before suspension.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2008] EWCA Crim 3120, the court granted leave to appeal, extended time for Mrs Pangetti, and varied both sentences to suspended eight-month terms with unpaid-work requirements.
• Sentencing court: On 10 November 2008, the applicants were sentenced following guilty pleas. Mr Pangetti received 12 months’ imprisonment and Mrs Pangetti received 18 months’ imprisonment.