Velev, R v

MR JUSTICE SILBER: Kiril Velev pleaded guilty on rearraignment in the Crown Court at Harrow on 21st November 2007 to two conspiracy counts. On 11th January 2008, at that court, he was sentenced to four-and-a-half years' imprisonment in respect of count 1, which was for a conspiracy to make articles or materials specifically designed or adapted to be used in the making of false identity documents. He also on the same occasion received a consecutive sentence of 18 months' imprisonment in respect of count 2, which related to a conspiracy to make articles or material specifically designed or adapted to be used in the making of false identity documents.

As a result of investigations carried out into the manufacture of counterfeit identity documents, the appellant and his co-accused were arrested at an address in North London. It was a two bedroom garden flat which was a factory for the manufacture of documents with the remainder of the flat being sparsely finished.

During the period of 20th June 2007 to 3rd July 2007 the appellant was seen to enter the house and remain there for several hours with his co-defendants, using keys to enter the flat.

The amount of the false documents and associated paraphernalia in connection with the manufacture of documents seized in these investigation was that more than what had been recovered previously by the police during the whole of 2007. The evidence was that the number of items seized was the largest ever made in the United Kingdom since officers started to investigate this type of offence. The operation was described by an officer who specialised in this court as "very sophisticated and a well organised criminal concern." The evidence was that the value of the material of the goods produced and supplied was more than £1.5 million, although only £5,000 had been recovered as a result of the conspiracy.

On 3rd July 2007 a search warrant was executed at the home of the appellant and it was found that they were completing a template of an identity document. A thousand blank identity cards and 835 passport photographs and driving licence in various names were found, together with large quantity of ink ribbon and laminators. It was also found that a laptop computer was linked to an industrial printing machine and a bag containing completed documents was found in a wardrobe. A search of further computers, scanners and printers showed a number of false driving licence and false insurance cards.

The appellant and his co-defendants were arrested. Fingerprint test established that the appellant and one of his co-defendants had previously been arrested in 2006, when they were in possession of false identity documents and false names. In addition, in connection with those offences officers had seen a man approach the car and an exchange had taken place. The man who received those goods from the appellant and co-defendant was later found to be in possession of false identity and national insurance cards. This related to the conspiracy which I have described to form part of count 2.

Another aspect of that conspiracy was when the home of the appellant and his co-accused was searched, two false passports and one false driving licence were found with the appellant's photograph in them.

The appellant, who is of previous good character, is a Bulgarian born on 5th June 1978 and is therefore now 30 years of age.

There were two character references before the sentencing judge. The judge, in sentencing the appellant, attached great importance to the scale of the conspiracy and the potential damage that it could have caused. The basis of the appeal, which has been argued with commendable brevity by Mr Hill is that the total sentence that was imposed was manifestly excessive. It has pointed out in the written advice that the judge regarded the appellant as being a worker, not an organiser. This, it is said, was shown by the fact that the others had set up the premises and that the appellant did not have a key to them. Thus, the prosecution described the appellant's role as that of a helper.

It was stressed that in mitigation, in the written document that is the written advice, the appellant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and previously led an industrial working life. Thus it is said that a lower sentence should have been imposed.

In our view, a court when considering cases of this sort, has to attach substantial weight to, first, what the conspiracy was hoping to achieve; second, the role of the person in the front of the court, and third, what person had gained or was likely to gain from the conspiracy.

In this case, we can well understand why the sentencing judge regarded this as a very sophisticated and well organised criminal concern, which was designed to service the criminal fraternity in this country and make very substantial amounts of money. As we have explained, the monetary value of materials and consumables found in respect of count 1 exceeded £1.1 million. The sentencing judge was told that the forged British passport was sold for something in the order of £1,000, while those of other countries were sold at something in the region of £500.

The passports seized were unlikely to deceive immigration authorities at the point of entry. Nevertheless, they would be of great value to facilitate those who are not entitled to do, to open bank accounts and to use passports to satisfy bank and financial institutions of false identity. In our view, this is deeply disturbing because those passports and false identity documents would have enabled bank accounts to be used for illegal money laundering and other purposes.

In our view, the damage that could have been done, if either conspiracy be allowed to continue to fruition would have been enormous. It would have enabled people not entitled to British passport to obtain the benefits of it. In addition, it clothes criminals with false identities which would have created subsequent problems in detecting them.

In our view, we must regard this as a major conspiracy, in which although the appellant was not the main organiser, he played a significant role in it.

In the written advice of evidence, our attention was drawn to the case of R v Munir [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 27, in which this court had to deal with an appeal for conspiracy to possess material for making false passports. In that case the sentences were reduced to six-and-a-half and four-and-a-half years. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this court in Attorney-General's Reference, Nos 118 and 119 of 2006 R v Jesus (Lucas Fernandez) & De Oliveira (Werleson Roderigo)[2007] EWCA Criminal 121, in which the President of the Queen's Bench Division said in respect of a similar conspiracy that a 6 year sentence might well have been appropriate.

In our view, all these cases are fact-sensitive. The sentences imposed on each of them must not be regarded as being a reliable precedent for the present case. Indeed, the potential profits that could have been earned in this case was a matter which distinguishes it from those other cases.

We agree with the sentencing judge that in cases of this sort, in which the maximum sentence after a trial is 10 years, organisers can expect sentences of 9 years after a trial while those who are workers and lieutenants would receive sentences in the order of six-and-a-half years after a trial.

The judge took the view that the appellant was entitled to a discount of a third for a plea of guilty, which would have meant that so far as the first conspiracy was concerned a sentence in the region of 4 to 5 years for somebody performing the role of the appellant. In our view there is nothing wrong with the sentence of four-and-a-half years for the first count of conspiracy especially as the appellant become involved in this when he was not only on bail but when he had escaped from police bail. As we have explained, the appellant had to serve the earlier conspiracy, which was a different conspiracy carried out in a different way. This clearly necessitated a consecutive sentence so as to show that the appellant did not escape punishment for this serious conspiracy which produced two false passports, one false driving licence and also led to other false identity and national insurance documents being produced. In our view, taking account of all the facts and all the circumstances which are now before the court, there can be no criticism whatsoever that the consecutive sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. In our view, the judge had clearly in mind the principle of totality and there is nothing wrong with the total sentences of 6 years' imprisonment which were imposed for these serious offences.