Regina v Aderemi

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty on 19th January 2018 at the Crown Court at The City to possession of an identity document with improper intent, contrary to section 4(1) and (2) of the Identity Documents Act 2010, and an associated summary offence of working while disqualified from working due to immigration status, contrary to section 24B of the Immigration Act 1971. He was sentenced to fourteen months' imprisonment for the former offence and a concurrent four months' imprisonment for the latter. The Appellant came to The State in 2013 on a student visa to attend The University but did not use any false identity document to enter the country. His leave to remain was revoked in March 2014 for failure to attend university, but he remained in the country unlawfully. In 2017, he used a counterfeit Dutch identity card to obtain work through two recruitment agencies, working for approximately ten weeks and earning payments. Police executed a search warrant at his residence in December 2017, leading to his arrest and admission of guilt. The Appellant had no prior court appearances and received credit for early guilty pleas. He appealed the total sentence of fourteen months' imprisonment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point of 24 months' imprisonment for the offence of possession of an identity document with improper intent was excessive and out of line with relevant authorities.
2. The appropriate sentencing range for offences involving possession and use of false identity documents to obtain employment.
3. Whether deportation should be recommended in light of the Appellant's family life and Article 8 rights considerations.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the factual circumstances and compared them to established precedents. Although the sentencing judge referred to various cases, he did not specifically consider R v Ovieriakhi, which is the leading authority guiding sentencing for possession of false identity documents used solely to obtain employment. The Court emphasised that Ovieriakhi sets a lower sentencing range for such cases, reflecting the limited nature of the offence when the false document is not used for re-entry or other more serious purposes. The Court distinguished this case from R v Lasgaa, where the false identity document was intended for future use to re-enter the United Kingdom, a factor warranting a higher starting point. Given that the Appellant’s misuse was limited to obtaining employment to support himself, the Court found the original starting point of 24 months excessive. Applying the principles from Ovieriakhi, the Court recalibrated the starting point to twelve months, reduced to nine months for mitigating factors, and further reduced by one-third for the guilty plea, resulting in a six-month sentence. The Court also considered but declined to recommend deportation, noting that issues relating to the Appellant’s family life and Article 8 rights were better suited for consideration by the Secretary of State and the First Tier Tribunal.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL by quashing the original sentences and substituting a sentence of six months' imprisonment for the offence on the indictment and a concurrent two months' imprisonment for the associated summary offence, resulting in a total sentence of six months' imprisonment.

This decision directly reduces the Appellant's custodial sentence and clarifies the appropriate sentencing approach for offences involving possession of false identity documents used solely for employment purposes. No broader precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing sentencing principles, and the Court expressly refrained from making any determinations regarding immigration or deportation matters, leaving those to the appropriate authorities.