Bogoslov,R. v

Where several false identity documents are possessed on one occasion, their number may increase the seriousness of the offence and the appropriate single term. It does not justify consecutive sentences which would be wrong in principle.

A sentencing court must sentence for the offence charged and on facts supported by the prosecution case. It must not use the range for an aggravated intention-to-use offence when sentencing simple possession, or deny genuine credit for an early guilty plea.

A recommendation to deport an EU citizen must comply with the strict public-policy and public-security criteria in Directive 2004 38/EC. It cannot rest on general deterrence or unsupported assumptions about international criminality.

The appellant, a Romanian national lawfully resident in the United Kingdom, pleaded guilty at Wood Green Crown Court to four counts of possessing false identity documents contrary to section 25(5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006. Four counterfeit European Union passports, each carrying his photograph, were found in his possession.

The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment, the statutory maximum for each count, and recommended deportation. The appellant appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The central issues were whether the Recorder had wrongly sentenced the appellant as though he possessed the passports for uncharged international criminal use, whether proper credit had been given for his guilty plea, and whether a deportation recommendation was lawful for an EU citizen.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentences of two years' imprisonment were quashed and concurrent sentences of 12 months substituted. The recommendation for deportation was set aside.

2. The Recorder had erred in principle by contemplating consecutive sentences for four passports possessed on the same occasion. Following R v Kolawole [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 14, the number of documents could properly increase the seriousness of the single possession offence and the appropriate term within its statutory maximum. It could not justify consecutive terms.

3. The Recorder also failed to give real credit for the early guilty pleas. He treated the absence of consecutive sentences, which would itself have been wrong, as the plea discount. More fundamentally, he sentenced on an unproved assumption that the appellant intended international criminal travel. The appellant had been charged only with simple possession under section 25(5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006, carrying a two-year maximum, rather than the aggravated intention-to-use offence carrying a substantially higher maximum. A court cannot sentence for the more serious, uncharged offence or on a factual basis not supported by the prosecution.

4. In light of De Oliveira [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 115, and allowing for the four documents, the appropriate sentence after a guilty plea was 12 months. The court assessed the pre-plea term at about 18 months.

5. The deportation recommendation was incompatible with the EU-law criteria reflected in Article 27 of Directive 2004 38/EC. Any restriction on an EU citizen's residence had to be proportionate, based exclusively on personal conduct, and founded on a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. General prevention was impermissible. No evidential basis supported the Recorder's conclusions about international criminality or a present danger to public security. The Secretary of State remained free to commence deportation proceedings if credible information justified them.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the concurrent two-year terms, substituted concurrent terms of 12 months' imprisonment, and set aside the deportation recommendation.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: Following guilty pleas to four offences under section 25(5) of the Identity Cards Act 2006, the Recorder imposed concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment and recommended deportation.