Ovieriakhi, R. v

Use of a false passport solely to obtain employment or a bank account is less serious than use of such a document to evade controls on entry to the United Kingdom. It nevertheless facilitates an offender’s remaining in breach of immigration control. A custodial sentence will therefore usually be required, save in exceptional circumstances. The appropriate sentence may be lower where the offender is of good character and has used, or tried to use, the document only to obtain work to support themselves or their family.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Canterbury Crown Court to possessing a false identity document with intent to use it to establish registrable facts, contrary to section 25(1)(a) of the Identity Cards Act 2006. She had entered the United Kingdom lawfully, overstayed, and obtained a false Nigerian passport in a similar name so that she could work in a care home.

The Crown Court imposed 12 months’ imprisonment. That sentence also made her automatically liable for deportation under section 32 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against sentence. The central issue was whether use of a false passport to obtain work should be sentenced in the same category as use of one to secure entry into the United Kingdom.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was excessive. The court substituted six months’ imprisonment.
2. The authorities reflected a factual spectrum. At its most serious was use, or intended use, of a false passport to evade entry controls, including conduct capable of assisting terrorism or facilitating prohibited entry. The guidance in R v Kolawole [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 14 applied to that category.
3. A false passport used only to obtain work or a bank account did not secure entry. It did, however, facilitate remaining in the United Kingdom in breach of immigration controls. The court held, contrary to the approach in R v Adebayo [2007] EWCA Crim 878, that this was a valid distinction. The case belonged with R v Mutede [2005] EWCA Crim 3208, R v Carneiro [2007] EWCA Crim 2170, and R v Olasunkanmi [2009] EWCA Crim 15, rather than with Kolawole.
4. Custody would usually be required, save in exceptional circumstances, because this conduct undermined immigration control. A lower term could nevertheless be justified where a person of good character used the document only to seek work for their own or their family’s maintenance. Applying that approach, six months was appropriate.
5. After hearing submissions, the court stated that it was minded to recommend deportation because the offence had been committed to circumvent immigration control.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence was reduced to six months’ imprisonment: [2009] EWCA Crim 452.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 20 January 2009, the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.