ZIMBA'S JAIL TERM QUASHED IN THE UK

A Zimbabwean student who was jailed in the UK has had her sentence quashed on appeal. Thandiwe Matikiti used a forged visa to fraudulent...

A Zimbabwean student who was jailed in the UK has had her sentence quashed on appeal.

Thandiwe Matikiti used a forged visa to fraudulently claim £23,000 of public money to train as a nurse at Stirling University. She was jailed for 14 months in October after she admitted the fraud.

The 32-year-old appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was excessive and she was a first offender.

At the High Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh , judges Lord Glennie and Lord Turnbull agreed and decided to admonish Matikiti. They ruled it was an “exceptional” case and said she committed the fraud for a “worthwhile purpose”.

The court was told that the appellant had already served almost half of her sentence and was due to be released this month.

However, notwithstanding her imminent release from custody she was seeking to challenge the sentence imposed because, under the Immigration Rules, a custodial sentence of 12 months over would result in “automatic deportation” after her release.

The sheriff concluded that that there was “no alternative” to a custodial sentence, but the appeal judges ruled that in reaching that conclusion the sentencing sheriff “fell into error”.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Glennie said: “In any event the circumstances in this case are, we think, exceptional, having regard in particular to the nature and purpose of the fraud which was committed to enable her to get funding for worthwhile and necessary training with the view to a career in nursing. Having regard to this and to the statutory presumption in her case against a custodial sentence, we consider that the matter could properly have been dealt with by a community payback order.”

“However,” he added, “it is too late for that disposal now since the appellant has served all but a week of her sentence. Further, for this court simply to reduce the custodial sentence would be artificial; and it would fail to give effect to our view that a custodial sentence was not required and that a community payback order would have been the appropriate course.

“In those circumstances, the appellant having, as we have said, served almost the whole of her sentence, and having in consequence served a punishment significantly more severe than the community disposal which we would have considered appropriate, we propose to allow the appeal, quash the sentence and simply admonish the appellant.”