Goodings, R. v

A defendant must be sentenced for the offence of which he has been convicted, on a factual basis consistent with any plea accepted by the prosecution. Where a plea of not guilty to the more serious offence under section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010 has been accepted, it is irrelevant and improper to sentence a defendant convicted under section 6 as though he possessed the document with an intention to impersonate its owner.

The substantial difference between the statutory offences and their maximum sentences requires the sentencing court to distinguish improper possession from simple possession without reasonable excuse. The substituted sentence in this case was not intended to provide sentencing guidance for future cases.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Snaresbrook Crown Court to possessing another person's identity document without reasonable excuse, contrary to section 6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010. He had been found with a driving licence and bank cards in another person's name after giving police that name when arrested.

He had originally faced a charge under section 4(1) of the Act, alleging possession of a false identity document with improper intention. The prosecution accepted his not-guilty plea to that charge and accepted his guilty plea to the section 6 offence. The sentencing judge nevertheless treated his use of the licence to impersonate its owner and conceal his immigration status as aggravating conduct, imposing six months' imprisonment.

The appeal concerned whether the sentence had wrongly been based on matters inherent in the abandoned section 4 allegation.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the six-month sentence and substituted two months' imprisonment.

2. Section 4 and section 6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010 create materially different offences. Section 4 concerns possession with an improper intention, including an intention to use the document to establish, ascertain or verify personal information by impersonating another. Section 6 concerns simple possession of another's identity document without reasonable excuse. Their very different maximum sentences reflected that distinction.

3. Once the prosecution had accepted the applicant's plea of not guilty to the section 4 allegation, it was irrelevant and improper to contend that he possessed the document with an intention to impersonate its owner. The judge therefore erred in principle by sentencing the applicant for having used the document as a cover to avoid detection as a person unlawfully in the United Kingdom. The prosecution's presentation had led the judge to that erroneous approach, so no criticism was made of the judge personally.

4. The court did not purport to give a sentencing guideline for section 6 offences. It had insufficient material on the statutory history and the intended mischief of the lesser offence. Future parties should be properly prepared to assist the court on those matters.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal sentence was granted. The appeal was allowed and the six-month sentence was quashed and replaced with two months' imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 16 August 2012, the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence under section 6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010 and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.