Jamalov, R. v

A person who knowingly possesses a false identity document commits the offence under Identity Cards Act 2006, section 25(1)(a), if he intends to use it to establish a registrable fact about himself. A false document can be used to establish identity even where it gives the holder’s correct full name. Producing it when asked for identification may establish that intention.

The prosecution must prove the intended use for a registrable fact. Possession of a false document alone is insufficient. The court need not infer an intended use to establish every inaccurate detail shown on the document.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Inner London Crown Court to possessing a false Czech driving licence with the requisite intention, contrary to section 25(1)(a) of the Identity Cards Act 2006. He also admitted driving without insurance and failing to comply with bail.

After a road collision, he produced the licence when a police officer asked for identification. The licence bore his correct name but contained an incorrect date of birth. He appealed both conviction and sentence, contending that use of a false document bearing his true name did not establish a registrable fact about him.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. Section 25(1)(a) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 criminalises knowing possession or control of a false identity document where the person has the requisite intention. The requisite intention includes intending to use the document to establish registrable facts about oneself.

2. The court applied the statutory definitions. A document which purports to be a foreign driving licence is an identity document. A person’s full name is part of that person’s identity and therefore a registrable fact. The appellant produced the false licence in response to a request for identification. His guilty plea admitted that he intended thereby to establish who he was.

3. It did not matter that the licence gave the appellant’s correct name. A false document used to establish a true full name is still used for the statutory purpose. The prosecution must, however, prove the intended use of the document. The court left open whether the appellant intended to establish his date or place of birth.

4. The appeal against sentence was allowed. Treating the licence as a document held to create the appearance of lawful entitlement to drive, the appropriate sentence was four months’ detention. Such a case would ordinarily be dealt with in the magistrates’ court. The six-month imprisonment term was substituted with four months’ detention in a young offenders institution. The consecutive one-month sentence for breach of bail remained, producing a total of five months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed and the sentence for the section 25(1)(a) offence reduced: [2010] EWCA Crim 309.
• Inner London Crown Court — on 8 December 2009, the appellant pleaded guilty and received six months’ imprisonment for the identity-document offence, with other sentences for driving without insurance and breach of bail.