Kishientine, R v

Kishientine, R v

The sentence imposed was not excessive given the public interest in immigration control and deterrence. The section 31 defence was not available as its conditions were not met. The judge was not obliged to assess the genuineness of the asylum claim when sentencing.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Micheline Bulankay Kishientine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deception in Immigration, Asylum Claims, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Immigration Law Deception in Immigration Asylum Claims Sentencing Guidelines

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Micheline Bulankay Kishientine

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for obtaining leave to enter by deception was excessive given the circumstances and genuine asylum claim
  2. 2 Applicability of section 31 defence under Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed was not excessive given the public interest in immigration control and deterrence. The section 31 defence was not available as its conditions were not met. The judge was not obliged to assess the genuineness of the asylum claim when sentencing.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • sentence of 9 months' imprisonment upheld