CRIME — False instrument — Defendants presenting themselves with false identity cards as French nationals — Defendants charged with offences of possessing a false identity document with the requisite intent — Whether offence capable of being committed in the absence of existence of National Identity Register — Identity Cards Act 2006, ss 1, 25

R v Soule Ali and another

CA: Hooper LJ, Gibbs and Roderick Evans JJ: 23 January 2007

Even though the National Identity Register was not yet in existence, it was an offence for a person to have in his possession a false identity card with the intention of establishing registrable facts about himself.

The Court of Appeal(Criminal Division) so held when refusing applications by Adamou Soule Ali and Eugene Bombatu for leave to appeal against their convictions on 28 November 2006 at the Crown Court at Canterbury (Judge Van Der Bijl) of possession of an identity document with the requisite intent, contrary to s 25(1) of the Identity Cards Act 2006. They pleaded guilty to the offence after a ruling by the judge that facts which were capable of being registered were caught by s 25 despite the fact that the National Identity Register was not yet in existence.

HOOPER LJ, giving the judgment of the court, said that these applicants had presented themselves with false French national identity cards. It had been submitted by counsel for the applicants that they could not have committed the offence under s 25(1) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 for the following three reasons: (1) no register had yet been created and until it was created this offence could not be committed; (2) the offence could not be committed by a person who was not registered; and (3) a person to whom the false document was handed had to be a person who was able to access the register. Their Lordships were looking at the Act only shortly after it had been brought into force and before the detailed regulation had been made but they took the view that it was not arguable that the decision of the trial judge was wrong. It was a matter of simple statutory construction. There was nothing in the definition of “registrable fact” in s 1(5) of the 2006 Act that required there to be a register in existence. Equally there was no reason why the offence could not be committed by a person who was not registered, and there was no need for the person to whom the false document was handed to be able to access the register. For those reasons the applications for leave to appeal against conviction would be refused.

Appearances: Liam Walker (Kirk & Waitt, Dover) for the applicants; Richard Scott (Crown. Prosecution Service, Canterbury) for the Crown.

Reported by: Clare Barsby, barrister