Rehman, R. v

For the mandatory minimum sentence for specified firearms offences under section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968, exceptional circumstances exist where a five-year sentence would be arbitrary and disproportionate. The assessment is holistic. A court must consider the cumulative effect of all circumstances relating to the offence and offender; it must not reject each factor separately because none is exceptional alone.

The provision can be construed compatibly with Convention rights without reading it down. Its deterrent purpose remains important, but it may carry little weight where an offender did not know the possession was unlawful. The sentencing court's assessment is ordinarily respected unless clearly wrong.

Two collectors appealed sentences for firearms offences. Each had pleaded guilty to possessing a weapon within section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968, which engaged section 51A's five-year minimum term unless exceptional circumstances justified departure.

Rehman possessed an unconverted blank-firing replica bought online, believing it lawful. Wood possessed a shortened inherited shotgun as part of a larger collection and was also convicted of other firearms offences. The court considered the meaning of exceptional circumstances, the Convention compatibility of section 51A, and whether either appellant qualified for departure from the minimum term.

1. Section 51A was construed compatibly with the Convention. The court held that exceptional circumstances for section 51A(2) arise if imposing the five-year minimum would be arbitrary and disproportionate. This conclusion followed ordinary statutory interpretation; no interpretative obligation under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was required. The statutory purpose is deterrence, not solely an assessment of the offender's future dangerousness. Nevertheless, section 5 offences are absolute, and a person may unknowingly possess a prohibited firearm. That feature may make a mandatory deterrent term arbitrary or disproportionate.

2. The inquiry is holistic. The court must consider all circumstances relating to the offence and offender cumulatively. A single striking feature may suffice, but individually unexceptional matters may collectively cross the exceptional threshold. Age and incapacity to serve the term may also be relevant. The sentencing court's opinion is central, and an appellate court will not readily interfere unless the judge was clearly wrong.

3. Rehman's appeal was allowed. His lack of knowledge that the replica was unlawful or convertible, its acquisition and storage as a collector's item, his cooperation, character and other circumstances collectively were exceptional. The five-year sentence was quashed and replaced with 12 months' imprisonment, which had already been served.

4. Wood's appeal succeeded only as to counts 1 and 2. The five-year sentences on those counts were imposed under a mistaken belief that section 51A applied, and were replaced by concurrent 12-month terms. However, Wood's experience with firearms, failure to check the legality of the shortened shotgun, and other firearms offending meant that the circumstances of count 9 were not exceptional. The five-year term on that count remained. Counsel did not pursue the proposed Convention-incompatibility argument after the court's construction of section 51A.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Rehman's five-year sentence was quashed and replaced by 12 months. Wood's five-year sentences on counts 1 and 2 were quashed and replaced by concurrent 12-month sentences; his appeal against the five-year sentence on count 9 was dismissed.

• Crown Court: Rehman was sentenced at Croydon Crown Court to five years' imprisonment under section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968. Wood received a total sentence of five years, including five-year terms on counts 1, 2 and 9.