Abuah, R. v

Consecutive sentences may properly be imposed where offending comprises distinct strands, rather than a single course of conduct. The sentencing court must nevertheless apply totality to ensure that the aggregate term is not manifestly excessive.

In assessing seriousness, the court may take account of sustained benefit fraud, the use of false identity documents, and relevant previous similar offending. A very late guilty plea advanced on a factual basis found to be false need not attract credit.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Croydon to three offences of possessing identity documents with improper intention and two fraud offences. She had used false documents to obtain employment and, after her leave to remain expired, to support a prolonged fraudulent claim for state benefits.

On 29 May 2017, the Crown Court imposed concurrent terms of nine months for counts 1 to 4 and a consecutive term of 20 months for the benefit fraud, making 29 months’ imprisonment. The single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant renewed her application before the Full Court, contending principally that all offences formed a single course of conduct and that the total sentence was excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. There was no arguable basis for contending that the total sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

2. The offending comprised two distinct strands. One concerned the use of false identity documents to obtain employment which the applicant could not lawfully obtain. The other concerned a separate false document and a prolonged fraudulent claim for state benefits. Consecutive sentences were therefore correct in principle.

3. The court rejected the submission that the modest earnings from the employment reduced the seriousness of that strand. The fraud also involved false identity documents used by a person without leave to remain or permission to work.

4. The benefit fraud continued for two years and caused loss exceeding £41,500. It was aggravated by a previous conviction for similar offending which had not deterred the applicant. The sentencing judge had also reduced the aggregate sentence to reflect totality.

5. No credit was required for the very late plea to the benefit-fraud count, because it had been entered on a factual basis rejected as false after a Newton hearing. The court found no merit in the remaining challenges to credit, guideline application, loss, or personal mitigation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Full Court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence after the single judge had refused leave.
• Crown Court at Croydon: On 29 May 2017, the applicant received concurrent nine-month terms for counts 1 to 4 and a consecutive 20-month term for count 5, totalling 29 months’ imprisonment.