Where there was no suggestion that the appellant had used false documents with any terrorist intentions, rather to avoid to the inevitability of his asylum appeal being dismissed on his leaving the UK, the judge had wrongly departed from the guidelines in Daljit Singh (1999) 1 Cr App(S) 490 when imposing a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment the sentence was quashed and substituted with a term of 9 months.Appeal against sentence with leave of the single judge. On 31 March 2003 at Chelmsford Crown Court, the appellant ('R') pleaded guilty to having a false instrument with intent, using a false instrument with intent, and obtaining leave to enter by deception and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment concurrent on each count. R, who was a citizen of Pakistan, had arrived in the UK and been refused asylum. While his second appeal was pending, R travelled to Pakistan to visit his sick mother. P obtained a passport, which he paid ?3500 to have endorsed with a stamp purporting to grant indefinite leave to remain, and a forged letter purporting to be from the Immigration Service confirming the grant of indefinite leave to remain. On his return from Pakistan using the false documents, R was arrested. In his sentencing remarks, the judge indicated that he was imposing a sentence above the guidelines in R v Singh (1998) (1999) 1 Cr App(S) 490 because since that case there had been a number of significant world events that heightened public concern about the ability of individuals to move freely between countries such that the integrity of the immigration control had never been more important. On appeal, R argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive.HELD: (1) There was no suggestion that R had used the false documents with any terrorist intentions, rather to avoid to the inevitability of his asylum appeal being dismissed on his leaving the UK. (2) Albeit that the offence of using a false instrument carried a greater maximum sentence than using a false passport to obtain entry, the fact was that the offence was in the context of using a false passport and attempting to leave the country with false documents. (3) Singh (supra) applied to individuals using a false passport to obtain entry to or exit from the UK for themselves. Different considerations would apply where the offender was supplying documents for others or on a greater scale. There was no reason why, in the case of an individual such as R, there should be a change from the approach in Singh (supra). (4) R was a man of good character with no previous convictions. The approach of the judge could not be upheld. The appropriate sentence was 9 months' imprisonmentAppeal allowed.