Aderemi, R. v

Where the only misuse of a counterfeit identity document is to obtain employment and earn a living, the offence is likely to fall at the lowest end of the relevant sentencing range. A markedly higher category may apply where the document is intended to facilitate re-entry to the United Kingdom after departure. The sentencing court should assess the actual intended and proved misuse of the document. A lengthy period of unlawful presence does not itself alter the character of misuse where the document was used only for employment.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court to possessing an identity document with improper intent, contrary to the Identity Documents Act 2010, and to working while disqualified by immigration status, contrary to the Immigration Act 1971. He received fourteen months’ imprisonment for the first offence and a concurrent four-month sentence for the second.

He had obtained a counterfeit Dutch identity card after his leave to remain had been revoked. He used it with recruitment agencies and worked at a brewery for about ten weeks. He admitted the offences promptly and had no previous convictions.

By leave of the single judge, he appealed on the ground that the judge’s 24-month starting point was excessive. The central issue was the proper sentencing category for false identity documents used solely to secure employment.

1. Appeal allowed. The 24-month starting point was excessive. The sentencing judge had treated the case as similar to R v Lasgaa [2014] EWCA Crim 1822, but that case concerned intended future use of a false identity card to re-enter the United Kingdom. That was a highly significant feature which materially distinguished it from the present offending.

2. R v Ovieriakhi [2009] EWCA Crim 452 was intended to guide sentencing in this area. It identified as the lowest end of the range cases in which a false identity document was misused only to seek employment and earn a living. The appellant’s misuse fell within that category. Although he had remained in the United Kingdom after his leave expired, the false document was used only in the attempts to obtain employment described in the evidence.

3. A starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment was appropriate. Allowing mitigation for good character and early admissions reduced it to nine months. Full credit for the guilty pleas reduced the sentence to six months.

4. The court quashed the original sentences and substituted six months’ imprisonment for the indictable offence and a concurrent two months for the summary offence. It declined to recommend deportation, because any future immigration decision would require consideration of family life and Article 8 rights by the authorities better placed to determine them.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a total sentence of six months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Cardiff: On 19 January 2018, imposed fourteen months’ imprisonment for the offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010, with a concurrent four-month sentence for the associated immigration offence.