Gambrah, R v

When sentencing a prohibited person for possessing a firearm under section 21(1) of the Firearms Act 1968, the court must assess the weapon’s nature and effective capacity, whether it was loaded, its actual or intended use, and the offender’s record. A genuine firearm and a serious history of violence are aggravating features. However, the absence of ammunition and a weapon’s limited practical capacity for use may materially reduce the proper sentence. The sentence must reflect the overall gravity of the possession, rather than the firearm’s description alone.

The appellant was convicted at Croydon Crown Court on 25 June 2008 of possessing a firearm while prohibited, contrary to section 21(1) of the Firearms Act 1968. He received three years’ imprisonment, with 131 days on remand to count, and the firearm was ordered to be disposed of or forfeited.

The firearm was a self-loading rifle with its serial number removed. It could be fired, but did not feed or reject ammunition properly and no ammunition was found. The appellant appealed his sentence with leave of the single judge. The central issue was whether three years’ imprisonment was excessive when the weapon’s practical use was limited but the appellant had a previous robbery conviction.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of three years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. It was quashed and replaced with 27 months’ immediate imprisonment. The 131 days spent on remand continued to count towards that sentence.

2. The court applied the sentencing principles stated in R v Avis [1998] 1 Cr App R(S) 240. Sentencing for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person requires an assessment of the type and danger of the weapon, any use made of it, any intended use, and the offender’s record. The court also identified the weapon’s readiness to fire and the presence of ammunition as relevant practical matters.

3. The rifle was a genuine firearm and the appellant’s previous six-year sentence for robbery was aggravating. However, there was no ammunition, and the weapon was difficult to operate because it did not feed or reject ammunition in the normal firing process. Although it could be fired, its practical use was limited.

4. The court considered the sentencing comparisons in R v Norman Hill, R v Brizzi, R v Corrish, R v Gavin Friston, and R v Anthony Holmes. In the light of those authorities and the limited use to which this weapon could be put, a lesser immediate custodial sentence was required.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 27 months’ immediate imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Croydon: On 25 June 2008, convicted the appellant under section 21(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 and imposed three years’ imprisonment.