R v Mounir Lameche

On 3 February 2025 in the Crown Court at Reading before HHJ Millard, the applicant (then aged 50), having earlier pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for four counts (counts 1 to 4) of possession of false identity documents and for one count (count 5) of fraud, all to run concurrently. He was also subject to a statutory surcharge order in the sum of £187. He now seeks to renew his application for leave to appeal against that sentence; leave having been refused by the single judge.

The applicant was employed at Beachwood School from 4 January 2019 and worked there for around 34 months. In applying for that job, he had made an application in respect of a Disclosure Barring Service (“DBS”) disclosure report. Subsequently, he decided to look for new employment and required a new DBS check. In that application he provided some documentation that the DBS assessor considered to be fake. The matter was reported to the police.

The police duly attended the applicant’s address on 6 June 2024. At the address the police found two French passports (one expired and one still in date), an Irish passport and a French ID card. These were all in the name of “Mr Adel Boughambouz”, which is the name the applicant used to gain employment. One of the French passports was a genuine document when first issued but the photograph on it had been changed to one of the applicant. The other passports and the other ID card were fraudulent from the outset.

It was established that the French ID card and expired passport had been used by the applicant to successfully pass the DBS check that allowed him to gain employment at the school. The applicant’s brother, the co-defendant Amine Lameche, was also in attendance at the property and was found to be in possession of a counterfeit Belgian driving licence.

In sentencing the applicant, the judge noted that although he had been living and working in the UK unlawfully for over 20 years, he had no previous convictions, and he would be treated as being of good character for the purposes of sentence. Having noted that there were no sentencing guidelines for this offence the judge went on to conclude that the applicant demonstrably used the fraudulent documents to obtain employment and, more importantly, in order to bypass a DBS check which is an important safeguard to ensure children are protected. These aggravating features and the fact that he was being sentenced for four separate offences led the judge to adopt a starting point of 16 months. The judge then applied 25 per cent discount for plea to reach a sentence of 12 months.

The applicant sought leave on two grounds: first, that the sentence was manifestly excessive and it exceeded the range for comparable offences in a series of recent authorities; and second, that too much weight was given to the aggravating features, those being that the applicant had lived and worked unlawfully in the UK for over 20 years.

In refusing leave to appeal the single judge said as follows:

“Your counsel argues that (a) the judge took insufficient account of the authorities and (b) too much weight was given to the aggravating factors and too little weight given to mitigating factors.

The judge clearly had in mind the distinction between possession and use for employment and for use to obtain entry of extension of leave to remain. This was emphasised in the case of R v Ovierakhi [2009] EWCA Crim 452, a case in which a sentence (before plea) was reduced from 18 months to 9 months (in relation to a single document). It is clear that your counsel provided considerable assistance, tabulating the relevant authorities and identified those in which the sentence had been 6 months or less, or suspended sentences.

In your case, it is plain from the sentencing remarks that the judge distinguished this position on the basis of two factors: (1) that there were 4 different false documents and (2) that you had used the false document(s) not just to gain employment but to evade the DBS checks required for obtaining employment in education. This latter point was regarded as a ‘serious’ aggravating feature. It is not reasonably arguable that this was an error of principle. It was on the basis of these factors that the starting point was increased from the sort of sentence imposed in Ovierakhi of 9 months to (it might reasonably be assumed) about 18 months, before a deduction for previous good character (to 16 months) and 25% credit for plea.

It is not reasonably arguable that the judge was wrong to focus on these points of distinction. It is not reasonably arguable that the judge took 22 years of illegal working in itself as an aggravating factor (this is not what the judge appears to have done: see page 3A-C of the sentencing remarks), but even if he had done, it is clear that in the context of fraud, the length of time a fraud has been perpetuated is relevant to placing the sentence in a higher category of culpability in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. The fact that a long period in illegal employment is not fatal to an application for indefinite leave to remain is not arguably relevant to what may constitute higher culpability in the context of fraud in accordance with the relevant guidelines.

As such, the sentence was, as the judge explained, principally driven upwards from those cases considered in the authorities by the fact that the false documents were used by you to evade an important statutory safeguarding regime. In these circumstances, it is not reasonably arguable that a starting point of 16 months, before credit for plea, for the total criminality of your offending, is manifestly excessive.”

We agree entirely with the views of the single judge. As to ground 1, the fact that fraudulent documentation was used not only to obtain employment but to bypass an important child/vulnerable person protection safeguard, is a serious aggravating factor that elevates the seriousness of the offending in this case (although we emphasise that there is no suggestion here that the applicant is in fact a risk to children or others).

As to ground 2, we do not agree the judge treated the history of illegal working as an aggravating feature. Even if the judge had done so, the eventual sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was well within the reasonable bounds for the overall criminality involved and it cannot be said to be manifestly excessive. For these reasons, leave is refused in respect of the grounds of appeal.

The Registrar has brought to our attention that the wrong sum was imposed in respect of the statutory surcharge. In this case the correct amount that should have been imposed was £140 as the earliest date of offending was 4 January 2019 on count 5.