Havill & Ors, R v

Firearms Act 1968 section 51A requires the statutory custodial minimum unless exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or offender justify departure. Exceptional circumstances must be assessed against the whole case.

A jury’s failure to find actual knowledge of the firearms does not prevent a sentencing judge from finding, consistently with that verdict, that an offender deliberately avoided discovering the nature of a criminal venture. Deliberately turning a blind eye to the possible transport of illegal or dangerous articles may justify a deterrent sentence. Where the statutory minimum is independently proportionate and not manifestly excessive, there is no basis to reduce it.

The three appellants were convicted at Wood Green Crown Court of offences involving possession of prohibited firearms, firearms without certificates, and ammunition. They had transported four closed boxes between vehicles. The boxes contained a large number of lethal handguns, silencers and live ammunition.

The jury acquitted them of possession with intent to endanger life. The sentencing judge accepted that the verdicts meant that actual knowledge of the firearms had not been proved. He nevertheless found that each appellant had deliberately avoided knowing what was being transported and appreciated a significant risk of criminal conduct.

Each appellant received concurrent sentences, the longest being five years’ imprisonment. Their appeals challenged the applicability of the statutory minimum and contended that their lack of actual knowledge amounted to exceptional circumstances.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The concurrent five-year sentences were amply justified and were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
2. Section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968, as applicable to these offences, required an appropriate custodial sentence of five years for an adult unless exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or offender justified a lesser sentence. The question of exceptional circumstances had to be answered in the context of all the facts.
3. The jury’s acquittals on counts requiring proof of intent to endanger life established that actual knowledge of the firearms had not been proved to the requisite standard. They did not require the sentencing judge to accept every detail of the appellants’ accounts. It was open to the judge to find that they had deliberately closed their eyes to the nature of the goods and knew there was a significant risk of criminal behaviour. That finding was consistent with the verdicts.
4. The absence of proved actual knowledge did not amount to exceptional circumstances. The appellants had made themselves available, for payment, to transport goods in circumstances in which they deliberately avoided inquiry. The fact that the goods were a substantial arsenal of dangerous firearms and ammunition supported deterrent sentences.
5. Independently of the statutory minimum, five years was not too long for conduct involving deliberate blindness to the transportation of such dangerous items. No reduction was warranted. A possible compassionate matter concerning one appellant was for the prison authorities, not this sentencing appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the three appeals against sentence and upheld the concurrent five-year terms.
• Wood Green Crown Court: following convictions on 28 February 2008, sentenced each appellant on 19 May 2008 to concurrent terms, with a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.