Ahmet, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, owner of Company A, an approved motorcycle testing centre in The City, was authorised to issue certificates confirming completion of compulsory basic training ("CBT") required before riding certain motorcycles. Between June and August 2021, the Appellant issued 120 certificates falsely stating that individuals had completed CBT conducted by named instructors, when in fact many had not completed the training or had completed a shortened version. This resulted in these individuals driving uninsured and without proper training, thereby undermining public safety regulations. The Appellant received between £12,000 and £18,000 for these certificates. The offences occurred over three months following pandemic-related disruptions, which increased demand for CBTs. The Appellant, aged 63 at sentencing, had no prior convictions, expressed remorse, and had mitigating personal circumstances. He pleaded guilty to nine counts of adapting an article for use in fraud contrary to section 7(1) of the Fraud Act 2006. The Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of 28 months' imprisonment on 13 September 2024. The Appellant appealed with leave granted by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in his identification and application of factors relating to culpability and harm under the sentencing guideline for the offence.
2. Whether the sentence of 28 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the agreed factual basis.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contested that his culpability was high, submitting it fell between high and medium.
• The Appellant disputed that the harm caused fell within the greater category, contending it was lesser or at most between greater and lesser harm.
• The Appellant argued the sentence was manifestly excessive considering the agreed facts and mitigating factors.

Crown's Arguments

• The Crown submitted the Appellant's culpability was high due to a leading role, abuse of position, sophistication, and sustained fraudulent activity.
• The Crown contended the harm was greater based on the large number of false certificates, potential to facilitate fraud affecting many victims, use of third-party identities, and the considerable financial gain.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court affirmed the categorisation of the offending as high culpability, emphasizing the Appellant's abuse of a position of responsibility. Regarding harm, the court noted the case was atypical for the sentencing guideline, focusing primarily on public safety risk rather than financial loss alone. The issuance of 120 false certificates over three months was substantial, with potential to facilitate fraudulent acts affecting many victims. Although not all certificates were used to deceive employers, the scale and nature of the offence justified placement in the greater harm category. The court acknowledged mitigating factors, including the Appellant's good character and remorse, which justified a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range before reduction for guilty pleas. The court concluded the sentencing judge acted within proper discretion, correctly applying the guideline and balancing aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISMISSED.

The court upheld the concurrent sentences of 28 months' imprisonment imposed on the Appellant. The decision confirms that abuse of a position of responsibility and the public safety risks arising from fraudulent certification justify classification within the high culpability and greater harm categories under the sentencing guideline. The ruling reinforces adherence to sentencing guidelines while allowing appropriate mitigation for personal circumstances and guilty pleas. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.