Miller, R. v

Offences involving counterfeit currency will ordinarily require an immediate custodial sentence because they threaten the currency system and can cause loss to innocent recipients. The term must nevertheless be proportionate. In assessing seriousness, the quantity of notes is important because it may indicate the offender’s proximity to their source. A low quantity, an early guilty plea and substantial personal mitigation may make a high starting point manifestly excessive, even where the offender has a significant criminal record.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court to three offences of passing or tendering counterfeit £20 notes and one offence of having custody or control of counterfeit notes. He had tendered three notes bearing the same serial number at a nightclub. Three further forged notes were found at his home.

The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences totalling two years’ imprisonment. Although a pre-sentence report proposed a suspended sentence, the Recorder regarded immediate custody as inevitable. The appellant appealed, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive when compared with previous sentencing decisions for counterfeit-currency offences.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court quashed the concurrent sentences totalling two years’ imprisonment and substituted concurrent sentences of 15 months’ imprisonment.
2. Immediate custody was inevitable. Passing counterfeit notes undermines the currency system and exposes innocent recipients to loss. Such offending will therefore require a custodial sentence in nearly every case. The proposed suspended sentence order could not reflect the seriousness of these offences.
3. However, the term imposed was manifestly excessive. The court applied the observation in R v Howard (1985) 1 Cr.App.R (S) 320 that the quantity of counterfeit notes is important because it may indicate an offender’s proximity to their source. Here, only three notes were tendered and three further notes were found. The quantity was low and did not clearly show that the appellant was close to the source.
4. The judge’s two-year sentence, after credit for the guilty plea entered at the plea and case management hearing, indicated a starting point of about three years. That starting point was too high. The court took account of the low number of notes, the early plea, the appellant’s personal mitigation and his role as his severely disabled mother’s carer. His extensive record and previous custodial and community sentences remained aggravating features, but did not justify the sentence imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent sentences of 15 months’ imprisonment: [2010] EWCA Crim 257.
• Cardiff Crown Court: Following guilty pleas, imposed concurrent sentences totalling two years’ imprisonment on 6 October 2009.