England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		1st December 2005

1. MR JUSTICE CRESSWELL: On 11th August this year at Luton Magistrates' Court, the appellant, who is aged 35, pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 9th September, at the Luton Crown Court, she was sentenced by Mr Recorder Blackford as follows: offence 1, possession of a false instrument with intent, 14 months' imprisonment; offence 2, obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, 14 months' imprisonment concurrent. Thus the total sentence amounted to 14 months' imprisonment. She appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.
2. On 5th August this year police officers executed a search warrant at an address in Luton. The appellant was present and in her possession the officers found letters from the office of Immigration and Nationality Directorate, purporting to give her permission to stay and seek employment in the United Kingdom. Those letters were examined and found to be counterfeit. An immigration officer present at the search confirmed that the appellant was prohibited from seeking employment in the United Kingdom.
3. The officers also found a number of pay slips in the appellant's name. She had given a National Insurance number to her employer to obtain that employment. A counterfeit National Insurance card in her name was recovered.
4. Enquiries at her employers revealed that the appellant had worked from 16th July 2004 until 5th August 2005 as a care worker. Her employment was terminated on 5th August when the company was informed of her immigration status. As a result of her employment, she had been paid a total of £16,182.
5. When interviewed, the appellant immediately admitted that she had obtained the immigration letters to enable her to work and that was the reason she had also obtained the National Insurance card. She also admitted that she knew she was prohibited from working in this country and that she had deceived her employers.
6. The appellant is a Zimbabwean national of previous good character. We have seen a letter, which was before the judge, from the appellant dated 8th September.
7. Mr Akinsanya, for the appellant, has submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Insufficient credit, he argued, was given for the guilty plea and the mitigating circumstances, including the admissions in interview, the appellant's age and good character and the fact that she was a Zimbabwean national who came to this country in 2000. Mr Akinsanya referred us to R v Kolawole [2004] EWCA Crim 3047 and sought to distinguish the circumstances of that case. Importantly, he confirmed to this court that the appellant originally had permission to be in this country as a visitor. She had applied for a student visa and was awaiting the result of that application. He emphasised that she had a legitimate passport and a legitimate reason to be here.
8. We consider that there is force in these submissions. In the present case the appellant admitted obtaining the false immigration letters to enable her to work in the United Kingdom, and that was also the reason for obtaining the false National Insurance card.
9. In the guideline case of Kolawole this court was principally concerned with cases falling within section 3 and section 5(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. The Vice-President, Rose LJ, said at paragraph 6:

"... where one false passport is being used, contrary to section 3, or is held with the intention of use, contrary to section 5(1), the appropriate sentence, even on a guilty plea, by a person of good character, should now usually be within the range of 12 to 18 months."

10. It is, in our view, necessary to distinguish between using a false passport to obtain entry into this country or to remain here (as in the present case) using false immigration letters to enable a person who was permitted to enter this country, to obtain work here.
11. In all the circumstances of this case we quash the sentences imposed of 14 months' imprisonment and substitute concurrent sentences of six months' imprisonment. To that extent this appeal is allowed.