Summary of Appellate Opinion (Anonymised)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence brought with leave of the single judge. The Appellant pleaded guilty on 11 August 2025 in the Crown Court at The City before Judge Raynor to one count of possession of an identity document with improper intention contrary to section 4(1) and (2) of the Identity Documents Act 2010. The Appellant was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, a statutory surcharge was imposed and a recommendation for deportation was made.

Relevant facts: on 13 May 2024 Border Force officers intercepted a package sent from The State to a shop at which the Appellant worked. The package contained a forged Greek driving licence in the name "Kozhin Noori" but bearing the Appellant's correct date of birth; the photograph used on the licence was later found on the Appellant's phone. Enquiries established the licence had been forged in The State on the Appellant's instructions. The Appellant had been using multiple similar names and used the shop address to receive the package.

The Appellant is a Country X national who entered the United Kingdom illegally in 2021, claimed asylum, was granted limited permission to work in 2023 subject to restrictions (including residence in The City), but lived and worked in The City in breach of those rules. The asylum claim was refused in March 2024 and an appeal was lodged; the appeal's determination was uncertain at the time of the opinion.

Procedural history in the lower courts was confused at the magistrates' court stage due to an inappropriate postal requisition which suggested single justice procedure for an indictable only offence; the Appellant did not attend an early appearance and was later sent for trial. The Crown Court judge gave sentencing remarks, declined a pre-sentence report, took a starting point of 20 months' custody, applied 25% credit for the guilty plea and imposed 15 months' imprisonment, with a deportation recommendation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge adopted a starting point that was too high compared with relevant appellate authorities for offences involving possession/use of false identity documents.
2. Whether the judge erred in failing to give sufficient downward adjustment for the Appellant's good character and family circumstances.
3. Whether the Appellant was entitled to full (one-third) credit for an early guilty plea rather than the 25% credit given by the sentencing judge, in light of the magistrates' court procedural confusion.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge's starting point was too high compared with this court's previous decisions and sentencing guidance derived from them.
• The judge failed to make adequate downward allowance for the Appellant's good character and family circumstances.
• The Appellant should have received full (one-third) credit for an early guilty plea because he indicated a guilty plea at the first opportunity, and any failure to appear was caused by the inappropriate form used in the magistrates' court proceedings.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any specific submissions advanced by the Crown in opposition to these grounds beyond the Crown Court judge's sentencing reasoning as recorded.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Authored by Judge Edis, the court proceeded in stages.

1. Procedural and credit matters: The magistrates' court proceedings were procedurally confused because a postal requisition suggesting the single justice procedure was sent for an indictable only offence. There was no Better Case Management Form recording an unequivocal indication of a guilty plea. The sentencing judge treated the plea as entered after the first opportunity and thus entitled only to 25% credit. The appellate court reviewed that finding in light of subsequent information and concluded the Appellant had done all he could to indicate a guilty plea at the first opportunity and was therefore entitled to full (one-third) credit.
2. Deportation recommendation: The court applied the line of authority from R v Abdi, R v Soneji and R v Layden to consider the consequences of the statutory notice under section 6(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 not having been served. The court held that absence of the notice does not automatically invalidate a deportation recommendation; the proper question is whether prejudice accrued. Because the Appellant is not a British citizen, no prejudice arose and the absence alone did not invalidate the recommendation. Nevertheless, the court concluded that it would quash the deportation recommendation for reasons similar to those given in Aderemi (that deportation decisions are better made by immigration authorities and tribunals except in the clearest cases).
3. Sentencing level and comparative authorities: The court surveyed authorities (Kolawole, Ovieriakhi, Lasgaa, Mutede, Acheampong, Aderemi) and explained the established distinction between cases concerned with obtaining entry (more severe) and cases where false identity is used primarily to obtain employment (generally lower end). The sentencing judge had taken a 20-month starting point (lower than Lasgaa), found limited mitigation and no aggravating features save those identified, and applied deterrence considerations reflecting the increased pressure on the asylum system in 2025. The appellate court considered the offence serious: the licence was forged abroad by a forger acting on the Appellant's instructions, the driving licence posed risks to public safety and was aimed at obtaining denied employment. The court accepted the judge's broader emphasis on deterrence and that, given the changed context of 2025, higher sentences remain available for serious cases. It therefore held the 20-month starting point was within the available range and dismissed the challenge to the starting point and to the treatment of mitigation.
4. Adjustment for plea credit and resultant sentence: Having accepted the 20-month starting point, the court concluded the Appellant should have received full one-third credit for an early plea because the procedural error in the magistrates' court prevented his attendance. To give full credit arithmetically, the court substituted a term of 58 weeks' imprisonment in place of the judge's 20 months less 25% (which had produced 15 months).

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is allowed in part. The court quashed the sentence imposed by the Crown Court and substituted an immediate term of 58 weeks' imprisonment. The court also quashed the deportation recommendation.

Implications: The court upheld the sentencing judge's starting point (20 months) as within the permissible range given aggravating features and contemporary emphasis on deterrence in 2025, thereby rejecting the Appellant's challenge to the starting point and to limited mitigation. However, the Appellant was entitled to full one-third credit for an early guilty plea due to magistrates' court procedural confusion, necessitating substitution of the sentence. The deportation recommendation was quashed on grounds that such recommendations are generally better left to immigration decision-makers and tribunals; the court noted no prejudice arose from absence of the statutory notice but nevertheless declined to make the recommendation itself.