« 26 Reports by Commissioner | Main | 28 Identity documents for the purposes of s. 27 »
May 23, 2004
27 Possession of false identity documents etc
Offences
(1) It is an offence for a person to have in his possession or under his control.
(a) an identity document that is false and that he knows or believes to be
false,
(b) an identity document that was improperly obtained and that he knows
or believes to have been improperly obtained, or
(c) an identity document that relates to someone else,
with the intention of using it for establishing registrable facts about himself, or
of allowing or inducing another to use it for establishing, ascertaining or
verifying registrable facts about himself or about any other person (with the
exception, in the case of a document within paragraph (c), of the individual to
whom it relates).
(2) It is an offence for a person to make, or to have in his possession or under his
control.
(a) any machine or other apparatus which, to his knowledge, is or has been
specially designed or adapted for the making of false identity
documents, or
(b) any article or material which, to his knowledge, is or has been specially
designed or adapted to be used in the making of false identity
documents,
with the intention that he or another will make a false identity document and
that the document will be used by somebody for establishing, ascertaining or
verifying registrable facts about a person.
(3) It is an offence for a person to have in his possession or under his control,
without reasonable excuse.
(a) an identity document that is false;
(b) an identity document that was improperly obtained;
(c) an identity document that relates to someone else; or
(d) any machine or other apparatus, article or material which, to his
knowledge, is or has been specially designed or adapted for the making
of false identity documents or to be used in the making of such
documents.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be liable, on
conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years
or to a fine, or to both.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable.
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
two years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding the
statutory maximum, or to both;
(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not
exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
but, in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section
154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in paragraph (b) to
twelve months is to be read as a reference to six months.
(6) For the purposes of this section.
(a) an identity document is false only if it is false within the meaning of
Part 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c. 45) (see section
9(1) of that Act); and
(b) an identity document was improperly obtained if false information was
provided, in or in connection with the application for its issue or an
application for its modification, to the person who issued it or (as the
case may be) to a person entitled to modify it;
and references to the making of a false identity document include references to
the modification of an identity document so that it becomes false.
(7) In this section "identity document" has the meaning given by section 28.
Posted by wtwu at May 23, 2004 11:29 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.spy.org.uk/cgi-bin/mt3121/mt-tb.cgi/141
Comments
How are the authorities going to prove "knowledge" or "belief" about dual use items like computers, scanners, printers and Smart Card readers , for which there are many legitimate uses ?
Where is the statutory Code of Practice or list of banned counterfeiting items e.g. unlicsensed Ultraviolet Ink which can be added to by Order of the Secretary of State ? This could be a proper use of the Order mechanism, rather than the abuses of it elsewhere in this Bill.
How are the authorities going to prove "intent" ? They already fail to do so in most Computer Misuse Act cases.
If the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 already applies to professional counterfeiters of Passports and Driving Licences, then why is this section necessary at all ?
Why does this section not also apply to Primary Identification Documentation which will be used to obtain legitimate a ID Card, such as Birth Certificates, or Marriage Licenses, name change Deed Polls or Death Certificates ? If these are already covered by the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, then why is there a need for this section of the Bill ?
Posted by: wtwu at May 24, 2004 12:32 PM
Home Office Ministers are fond of using a soundbite along th elines of "35% of terrorists use false identities"
The unncorrected http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/uc130-vii/uc13002.htm">transcript of what David Blunkett and Des Browne said to the Home Affairs Committee on May 4th 2004
"Mr Blunkett: The media have. I have been very circumspect and I have indicated what the security services have said to me, which is they believe that in excess of a third of those who are engaged in supporting terrorism use multiple identities in order to be able to evade detection and to evade us being able to disrupt their activities"
"Mr Browne: ...There is no doubt that terrorists employ multiple identities. There is no doubt that they employ false identities for money laundering. In fact, our information is, as the Home Secretary said, that 35% activity involves the use of false identities, and I know from my own experience in Northern Ireland how successful we were in terms of policing terrorism by being able to stop people from using false identities and using them in many other circumstances."
Do they mean 35% of the multiple identities which are used by terrorists are actually British identities ?
If the figure is really so high, then civil service and Ministers' heads need to roll, as there must either be staggering incompetence, or else there are terrorist sympathisers working within the system.
If the figure of 35% only includes a small proportion of United Kingdom identities, then to use this as supporting evidence for a UK ID Card is dishonest - even if the proposed system worked perfectly, the effect on terrorists use of multiple identities would be negligable.
How many false identities does a terrorist or spy actually need ? Probably only one at most.
Posted by: wtwu at May 24, 2004 12:47 PM