Omaboe, R v

A recommendation for deportation may properly accompany sentence for the fraudulent use of a passport where the offender’s continued presence is potentially detrimental to the country. The sentencing court must assess the public interest in preserving confidence in the passport system and protecting lawful immigration controls. Use of forged documentation to maintain residence may undermine good order and prejudice those who work and remain lawfully.

A recommendation is distinct from an automatic-deportation case. An appellate challenge fails where the sentencing judge gave adequate reasons, had proper notice before making the recommendation, and correctly applied the potential-detriment test.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Blackfriars to possessing a false identity document with intent. He had provided his security employer with a photocopy of a forged Ghanaian passport apparently showing indefinite leave to remain. He received nine months’ imprisonment and a recommendation for deportation.

His application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal was substantially late. A single judge refused both applications. On renewal, the applicant challenged only the deportation recommendation, alleging inadequate reasons, insufficient regard to mitigation, inadequate notice, and the inapplicability of automatic-deportation provisions.

The central issue was whether the recommendation for deportation was properly made.

1. The renewed applications were dismissed. The application for an extension of time was substantially out of time. Waiting for a medical report did not explain the delay because the application could have been made and the report supplied later.

2. The sentencing judge gave adequate reasons. The judge was entitled to treat the use of a forged passport to maintain residence as conduct which undermined confidence in the passport system, destabilised society, and prejudiced persons who came to and worked in the country lawfully.

3. This was not an automatic-deportation case. It was a discretionary recommendation for deportation. The court was satisfied that proper notice of the possibility of a recommendation had been given.

4. The applicable question was whether the applicant’s continued presence was potentially detrimental to the country. The sentencing judge correctly directed himself on that question and was entitled to conclude that it was. The court endorsed the public-interest reasoning expressed by Rix LJ in Benabbas [2006] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 94.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for an extension of time and for permission to appeal against the recommendation for deportation were dismissed.

• Crown Court at Blackfriars: On 21 April 2008 the applicant pleaded guilty to possession of a false identity document with intent. He was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and was recommended for deportation.