Smith, R. v

Where convictions for separate firearms offences arise from possession of a single collection of weapons, the sentencing court should consider whether they amount in reality to one course of criminal conduct. If so, concurrent sentences will ordinarily better reflect totality than consecutive terms.

The gravity of the overall criminality must nevertheless be reflected in the principal sentence. Relevant features include the number and nature of the weapons, the availability of ammunition, insecure storage, and possession while prohibited from holding firearms. The absence of evidence that the firearms were used may mitigate sentence.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Saint Albans of possessing a prohibited weapon, possessing firearms without a certificate, and possessing firearms while prohibited from doing so. The weapons included four sawn-off shotguns, two unmodified shotguns and ammunition.

He received consecutive and concurrent sentences producing a total of ten years’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence, contending that consecutive terms were wrong in principle because the offences formed one course of conduct, and that the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. Although the offences were separately charged, the court held that the appellant’s conduct was, in reality, possession of a substantial arsenal of weapons. The proper course was therefore to treat it as a single course of criminal conduct and make the sentences concurrent: [7].

2. The offending remained very serious. The appellant possessed four working sawn-off shotguns, two further shotguns and ammunition. He knew that he was prohibited from possessing firearms. One prohibited weapon had also been left insecurely hidden where others might readily find it. His previous offending aggravated the position, although he had no earlier firearms conviction: [4], [6].

3. The absence of evidence that the firearms had been used was a mitigating factor, but did not preclude a lengthy custodial term: [6].

4. The court quashed the seven-year sentence on count 1 and substituted eight years’ imprisonment. The sentences on all remaining counts were left unaltered but ordered to run concurrently with that sentence. The total sentence was thereby reduced from ten years to eight years: [8]-[9].

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence allowed to a limited extent; the overall term was reduced to eight years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Saint Albans: The appellant was convicted on eight counts and sentenced to a total of ten years’ imprisonment.