R v Osmam Ahmet

Under the offence-specific sentencing guideline, abuse of a position of responsibility may by itself place offending in the high-culpability category. Harm may fall within the greater category where a large number of false articles were created and had potential to facilitate fraudulent acts affecting many victims. Comparisons with cases involving more articles or larger gains do not prevent those factors from being satisfied. Use of third-party identities may be insufficient alone, but need not be decisive where other factors establish greater harm. Once the offence is correctly categorised, powerful mitigation does not require a sentence below the bottom of the applicable range.

After pleading guilty to nine counts of adapting an article for use in fraud, contrary to section 7(1) of the Fraud Act 2006, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Wood Green on 13 September 2024 to concurrent terms of 28 months’ imprisonment. He had issued 120 false compulsory basic training certificates over three months.

The sentencing judge placed the offending in the high-culpability and greater-harm categories, selected a four-year-and-six-month starting point, reduced the sentence for mitigation and then allowed a one-fifth reduction for the guilty pleas. The appeal challenged the assessment of culpability and harm and alleged that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal. The sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. Culpability. The appellant occupied a position of responsibility as an authorised testing-centre operator and abused that position by issuing false certificates. That factor alone was sufficient to place the offending in the high-culpability category.
2. Harm. The offending was atypical of ordinary fraud under the guideline. Its principal mischief was the public-safety risk created by enabling 120 people who had not properly completed the required training to drive, rather than merely the financial benefit obtained by certificate recipients. Nevertheless, 120 certificates issued in three months constituted a large number. The certificates also had the potential to facilitate fraudulent acts affecting a large number of victims. The existence of other cases involving more articles or larger financial gains did not prevent the relevant guideline factors from being satisfied. Use of third-party identities, considered alone, might not have established greater harm, but the other factors were sufficient.
3. Mitigation and sentence. Having correctly categorised the offending, the judge was entitled to select the bottom of the applicable range and give full weight to the powerful mitigating features. The deliberate dishonesty, financial profit and repeated conduct over three months did not require a sentence below that range. The guilty-plea reduction was not challenged.
4. Appellate conclusion. The judge had applied the guideline correctly and reached a sentence that disclosed no error of principle or manifest excess.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1762, dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 13 September 2024, imposed concurrent 28-month terms of imprisonment after guilty pleas.