Mehmet, R. v

Under section 51 A of the Firearms Act 1968, departure from the five-year minimum sentence requires real exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or offender. The exception must be construed narrowly because the provision serves the public interest in removing prohibited weapons from circulation.

The circumstances must be assessed cumulatively. Factors which are insufficient alone may exceptionally justify departure when their combination presents an unusual picture. Once exceptional circumstances are established, sentence is at large. The statutory minimum, sentencing guidance, mitigation and the continuing public-safety policy must all be weighed when fixing the substituted sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wood Green to possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to section 51 A of the Firearms Act 1968. On 11 March 2005, the judge imposed the statutory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

The revolver had been lawfully acquired and lawfully possessed by the appellant until legislative change made it unlawful in January 2004. A period of grace allowed disposal or an application for a licence. The judge found that the appellant was depressed during that period and unaware of the change. No ammunition was found, and there was no evidence of criminal intent.

The appeal concerned whether those circumstances were exceptional so as to justify a sentence below the statutory minimum.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the five-year sentence and substituted two years and six months’ imprisonment.

2. Section 51 A of the Firearms Act 1968 imposed a five-year minimum sentence unless exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or offender justified departure. Its purpose was to remove prohibited weapons from circulation, including to prevent their acquisition by persons willing to use them. That policy required a cautious and narrow approach. Exceptional cases would be rare.

3. No identified circumstance was exceptional by itself. However, the appellant’s long period of lawful possession, his depression and lack of knowledge during the statutory period of grace, and the nature of the weapon, which had formerly been lawful, formed an unusual cumulative picture. Taken together, and in light of the favourable findings made by the trial judge, they amounted to exceptional circumstances.

4. Once that finding was made, sentence was at large, consistently with the approach described in R v Jordan, Alleyne and Redfern. The court had to consider the guideline case of R v Avis, all mitigation, and the statutory public-safety policy. The early guilty plea, absence of ammunition, absence of criminal intent, good character and nature of the weapon materially mitigated the offence. Nevertheless, the case could not be sentenced simply as an Avis case without giving weight to section 51 A’s policy.

5. Balancing those considerations, two years and six months’ imprisonment was the proper sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — By [2005] EWCA Crim 2074, allowed the sentencing appeal, quashed the statutory-minimum sentence and substituted two years and six months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — On 11 March 2005, following a guilty plea to an offence under section 51 A of the Firearms Act 1968, imposed five years’ imprisonment.