Kuku, R. v

For a guilty plea to possessing and using a false passport for an immigration purpose, the established 12–18 month sentencing bracket applies both where the passport is intended to secure entry into the United Kingdom and where it is intended to enable an unlawfully present person to remain. The sentence must reflect the individual offending, including the number of passports, the plea and personal mitigation.

A separate deception count does not constrain the sentence available for the false-document offence where the deception consists of obtaining and using the same false passport and visa.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Nottingham Crown Court to possessing false identity documents with intent and to seeking leave to remain in the United Kingdom by deception. He had used a false Nigerian passport containing a false visa in an attempted sham marriage to a French national.

The Crown Court imposed two years’ imprisonment for the document offence and one year concurrently for the deception. The sentence triggered automatic deportation under section 32 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the applicable sentencing guidance had not been followed and that the sentence was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of sentence. The court quashed the two-year sentence and substituted 15 months’ imprisonment.

2. The court accepted that the guidance derived from R v Kolawole [2005] 2 Cr App R (S) 14, as confirmed for false passports used to secure entry by R v Ovieriakhi [2009] EWCA Crim 452, also applied where a false passport was used to enable a person unlawfully present in the United Kingdom to remain. The relevant guilty-plea bracket was 12 to 18 months.

3. The appellant was not entitled to a lesser sentence than his co-accused merely because the charged offences carried different statutory maxima. Nor was the sentence for possessing the false passport constrained by the two-year maximum for the concurrent deception count. In this case the deception consisted in obtaining and using the passport and false visa which formed the subject of the document offence.

4. The appellant was entitled to credit for his guilty plea, although he had been arrested in highly incriminating circumstances. Having regard to the applicable bracket, the fact that only one passport was involved, the plea and the available personal mitigation, two years was clearly excessive. The case fell in the middle of the bracket.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 15 months’ imprisonment for the two-year sentence.

• Crown Court at Nottingham: On 7 June 2010, imposed two years’ imprisonment for possession of false identity documents with intent and one year concurrently for seeking leave to remain by deception, following guilty pleas entered on 11 May 2010.