Crispin, R. v

Unexplained unlawful possession of multiple lethal firearms, destructive ammunition and associated equipment warrants severe deterrent sentences, even where no particular intent or actual use is proved. The risk that weapons may enter circulation is a material sentencing consideration.

Where Firearms Act 1968 provisions impose a five-year minimum term, the court must impose at least that term unless exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or offender justify a lesser sentence. The statutory policy is deterrence and protection of the public; it does not depend on proof that the offender will be dangerous in future.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to 14 firearms and ammunition offences under the Firearms Act 1968. Police found numerous working firearms, substantial ammunition, military-style equipment and an improvised explosive device at his home. He had also supplied three loaded firearms to a friend.

One count involved a prohibited shortened weapon and engaged the statutory minimum sentence regime. The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences, producing a total of eight years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the total was excessive. The issue was whether the Recorder’s sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the statutory minimum, totality, the guilty plea, and the gravity and risks of the possession offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was not excessive and there was no basis for appellate interference.
2. The court assessed the seriousness of possession by reference to the lethal nature and working condition of the weapons, the immediate availability and destructive quality of the ammunition, the accumulation of weapons and associated equipment, and the appellant’s supply of firearms to another person. Those circumstances created a serious risk that the weapons would be used or would enter the possession of persons beyond the appellant’s control.
3. The absence of proof of a particular intent, and the absence of evidence that the appellant had himself used the firearms, did not reduce the offending to a level inconsistent with a severe deterrent sentence. The appellant was sentenced for possession only, but unexplained possession of several dangerous weapons could itself justify such a sentence.
4. Under Firearms Act 1968 section 51 A, one offence attracted a minimum term of five years’ imprisonment. No exceptional circumstances existed which could justify a sentence below that minimum. The court accepted that the statutory policy, described in R v Rehman and Wood [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 77, is deterrence and public protection rather than a finding of future dangerousness.
5. The Recorder had given full credit for the guilty plea, made the sentences concurrent, and addressed totality. He could have structured the sentences consecutively. The resulting total was therefore upheld. The court also expressed concern that the appellant may have been significantly undercharged and directed that the judgment be sent to the senior presiding judge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against an aggregate sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.
• Leeds Crown Court Following guilty pleas to 14 firearms and ammunition offences, the Recorder imposed concurrent sentences totalling eight years’ imprisonment on 16 March 2007.