REGINA v Kolawole

Factual and Procedural Background

On 5th July 2004 at Tower Bridge Magistrates' Court, the Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offences and was committed to the Crown Court under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The offences included two counts of possessing a false instrument with intent and offences of driving without a licence and without insurance. On 27th August 2004, at Inner London Crown Court, the Appellant was sentenced by Judge Prendergast to 8 months' imprisonment consecutively on each of the two offences of possessing a false instrument with intent, resulting in a total sentence of 16 months' imprisonment. These offences related to possession of two false passports and were contrary to section 5(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. The appeal was directed at the aspect of the sentence concerning the consecutive custodial terms for the two false passports.

On the morning of 3rd July 2004, the Appellant was observed driving erratically and was stopped by police. He produced a provisional driving licence under a false name and gave an address inconsistent with that on the licence. Upon arrest and search, the Appellant was found in possession of a forged Nigerian passport and a stolen British passport, both containing his photograph but bearing the name "Johnson." In interview, the Appellant admitted paying for the forged passport and claimed the British passport belonged to a deceased brother, though he could not prove this.

The sentencing judge took into account the early guilty pleas and emphasized the seriousness and increasing prevalence of passport offences, deeming custodial sentences, including consecutive terms, appropriate. The Appellant, born in 1975, had no known previous convictions and a pre-sentence report assessed his risk of reoffending as low.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the imposition of consecutive custodial sentences for possession of two false passports with intent under section 5(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 was appropriate.
2. The proper sentencing range for offences involving possession of false passports with intent, considering recent case law and increased public concern.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant, through Attorney Jones, argued that imposing consecutive sentences for possession of two different false passports was poor sentencing practice.
• Reference was made to several authorities to support this position, including R v Dhajit Singh, R v Siliavski, R v Cheema, R v Balasubramaniam, and R v Stanca.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Dhajit Singh [1999] 1 Cr App R(S) 49	Sentencing ranges for use of false passports; suggested 6-9 months custody for good character defendants pleading guilty.	The court noted the sentencing range was intended for use of a false passport and that the passage cited may have been misunderstood in later cases.
R v Siliavski [2000] 1 Cr App R(S) 23	Sentencing for possession of false passports; suggested 6 months' sentence.	The court criticized Siliavski for understating culpability and regarded it as an inadequate reflection of seriousness.
R v Cheema [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 356	Guidance on appropriate sentencing for couriers of false passports.	The court agreed Cheema provided a more appropriate sentencing guide than Siliavski.
R v Balasubramaniam [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 57	Followed Dhajit Singh's sentencing approach.	The court held that Balasubramaniam should no longer be regarded as authoritative given recent changes in public concern and sentencing standards.
R v Stanca [2004] 1 Cr App R(S) 265	Sentencing for possession of false instruments under different subsections of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.	Used to distinguish sentencing maxima for different offences under the Act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully distinguished between different offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, noting that maximum sentences vary depending on the specific offence charged. It observed that previous authorities had not always clearly distinguished these differences, which led to some confusion in sentencing guidance.

The court identified that the sentencing range suggested in Dhajit Singh was intended for use of false passports, not possession with intent to use, and that subsequent reliance on this range in cases such as Siliavski was misplaced. The court endorsed criticisms of Siliavski and found Cheema to be a more appropriate guide.

Given the possession of two false passports with intent, the court emphasized the need for a sentence reflecting the increased seriousness of the offence, especially in light of heightened public concern following international events. It rejected the continued authority of Balasubramaniam, which followed the earlier, lower sentencing range.

The court concluded that the appropriate sentence for possession of a single false passport with intent should now generally fall within 12 to 18 months even for a person of good character pleading guilty. Consequently, the total sentence of 16 months for possession of two false passports was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the imposition of consecutive custodial sentences totaling 16 months for possession of two false passports with intent. This decision reflects an updated sentencing approach that accounts for increased public concern and differentiates between offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. No new precedent beyond this case-specific ruling was established.