4 Aug 2006
The appeal is allowed because the offence was committed in 1994 on a single occasion and the correct reference for sentencing was the practice prevailing in 1994, which supported a lower sentence; accordingly the magistrate's sentence of eight months (based on a higher starting point and later authorities) was excessive and is substituted with four months imprisonment.
13 Feb 1996
The court held the original sentences were excessive given the precedents and facts: reduced the sentence for breach of condition of stay from 12 months to 3 months and for making a false representation from 12 months to 6 months, ordered those sentences to be served consecutively (total 9 months), and declined to activate the suspended sentence because it related to the same facts and would have been concurrent.
1 Dec 1995
The 16 month sentence was manifestly excessive in light of authority and established sentencing ranges; therefore the court reduced the sentence for the unlawfully obtained travel document to 9 months and for the false representation to 4 months and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently.
13 Sept 1994
Leave to appeal was refused because the deputy judge properly treated interference with immigration control and exploitation as serious aggravating factors and the concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment were not shown to be excessive or erroneous; the appellant's personal circumstances did not justify suspension of the sentence.