No: 200406968/B3 
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWCA Crim 3313
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2 

Friday, 4th November 2005
 
B E F O R E:

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT DBE  
 
MR JUSTICE LEVESON 

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PATIENCE QC 
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)

- - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

-v- 

MICHAEL RAYMOND SCOTT 
 
 - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -
MR P MARTIN appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT
- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	HIS HONOUR JUDGE PATIENCE:  On 28th September 2004 in the Crown Court at Chelmsford, the appellant was convicted of doing an act facilitating the commission of a breach of immigration law.  He was indicted on that count together with a co-defendant, John Ile, who was likewise convicted.  In addition the co-defendant was also convicted of two further counts, dealing with separate occasions on which he had been found to be knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for facilitating entry of illegal entrants.
2.	On 26th November 2004 the appellant was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and the co-defendant was sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment for the three matters for which he fell to be sentenced.  The appellant appeals against his sentence by leave of the Single Judge.
3.	We turn to the facts of this matter.  On a number of occasions between 17th June 2002 and 16th April 2003, John Ile was involved in transporting a number of non-entitled persons to enter the United Kingdom illegally.  In particular, Mr Ile hired a box van and made repeated journeys across the North Sea pretending that he was importing furniture into the United Kingdom.  On 27th June 2002 at Harwich, John Ile was caught with 13 illegal entrants in the back of the van.  Towards the end of 2002, he bought another van.  While now pretending to be importing fruit and vegetables, on 14th January 2003, this time at Sheerness, he was caught again with 15 illegal entrants in the back of his van.  He made no more journeys in the van but organised further similar journeys in the van booked in his company name through other drivers.
4.	The appellant was drawn into the matter by a friend called Mr Al Jaf, the driver of the van on at least one of the crossings.  He introduced the appellant to Mr Valentine, who explained that he was a distributor of fruit and needed drivers.  On one single occasion, the 16th April 2003 the appellant travelled from the Hook of Holland to Harwich.  He was stopped at Harwich by officers of Her Majesty's customs.  The van which he was driving was searched.  It was found to contain a cargo of rotting fruit, behind which were 13 persons entering the United Kingdom illegally.
5.	The appellant is a man of no previous convictions, now 26 years of age.  Similarly, the co-defendant was a man of no previous convictions, being somewhat younger.
6.	The learned sentencing judge had before him a pre-sentence report and character references.  The report described the appellant as expressing regret for his actions, as presenting a low risk of re-offending in the future and expressing a determination that this, being his first offence, would be his last.  In his sentencing remarks, the learned judge expressed the view that there were aggravating features of these offences.  They were for financial gain and certainly not committed for humanitarian motives.  He was of the view that the offences were so serious that only a custodial sentence would suffice.
7.	As far as the co-defendant was concerned, he took the view that he had an organisational role, that he was in the middle of the organisation, possibly in the higher echelons of it.  He, in contrast, accepted that as far as the appellant was concerned, he had been sucked into the operation by the friend, Mr Al Jaf.  He accepted that the appellant had initially been deceived and assessed him as being lower down the scale in the organisation than his co-defendant.  He took into account his good character and gave weight and consideration to the character references.
8.	In his grounds of appeal and his submissions before us, Counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient weight was given to the appellant's exemplary character and work record, the circumstances which led to his involvement in this offence and the fact that he was set up and used essentially as a front man.  In the grounds of appeal, it is further submitted that a sentence measured in months would have a required deterrent effect.  In particular, today counsel has urged upon us that, given the respective roles of the appellant and the co-defendant, there was a marked disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of the co-defendant which gives rise to a sentence of injustice on the appellant's part, particularly given the cynical use and exploitation of him by the co-defendant.
9.	There is no doubt that the illegal trafficking of human beings into the United Kingdom is something with which the courts have had to deal with frequently increasing frequency.  Further, the very serious concern felt by the general public and the court about these offences has been reflected by the two increases in the maximum sentence for these offences, firstly from 7 to 10 years in February 2000, and secondly, from 10 years to 14 years in February 2003.  This Court has considered the case of R v Van Bin Le and Stark [1999] 1 Cr App R(S) 422, in which the court held in determining the seriousness of a particular case, that a sentencing judge should have regard to whether or not it was an isolated offence or one of a series; whether there were previous convictions for like offences; whether the most motivation was commercial or humanitarian, to the degree of organisation and the role played, to the number of illegal entrants and whether or not they were strangers or family members.
10.	The operation in this case was clearly a well-organised one which the learned judge, who was in the best possible position to make an assessment, concluded was being run for profit and not for humanitarian purpose.  The number of persons who were in the van driven by the appellant was 13.  They were strangers to him.  The learned judge clearly had these aggravating features well in mind.
11.	Complaint is made that there is disparity between the sentences passed on the appellant and the co-defendant.  It is complained that the co-defendant received sentences which were unduly lenient.  That is the view of this Court.  He could not have complained, in our judgment, if he had received a sentence in double figures.  That, on the other hand, is no reason for this Court to alter the sentence passed upon the appellant.  What we have to do is to ask ourselves whether that sentence of 3 years' imprisonment, for what the appellant did and having regard to the role in the organisation, as found by the learned judge, was either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.  We conclude, without hesitation, that it was not.  Those who take part in illegal trafficking of this kind must expect to receive sentences which not only punish them but deter others who might be tempted to act as they did.  We are quite satisfied that the learned judge gave due and proper weight to all the matters urged upon him in mitigation before passing the sentence which he did.  We see no reason to interfere with it.  This appeal against sentence must be dismissed.