Truong, R. v

For possession of a stun gun without aggravating features, a sentence of less than 12 months’ imprisonment will generally be appropriate after a contested trial. The precise limit will depend on the circumstances, but it should not exceed 12 months in such a case.

A consecutive sentence may nevertheless be appropriate where the offender commits further offending whilst on bail for the weapons offence. Sentencing must reflect the absence or presence of evidence that the weapon was intended for criminal use and appropriate credit for a guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Blackfriars Crown Court to possessing a prohibited weapon, namely a Taser gun. He received two years’ imprisonment, consecutive to a two-year sentence already imposed for burglary.

The Taser was recovered during a search of his home. Its batteries were fully charged, but there was no evidence that he possessed it for a criminal purpose. The burglary had been committed whilst he was on bail for the weapons offence.

The appeal challenged the length of the consecutive sentence for possession of the Taser.

1. Appeal allowed as to sentence. The court quashed the two-year sentence for possessing the prohibited weapon and substituted six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the existing two-year burglary sentence.
2. A Taser is capable of serious harm. It can cause loss of muscle control, incapacitation, intense pain and mental confusion. Its possession is therefore serious even where it has not been used.
3. However, the court treated this as possession of a stun gun simpliciter, without aggravating features. There was no evidence that the appellant kept the weapon for a criminal purpose. The court would not infer such an intention merely because the weapon was capable of criminal use.
4. The authorities placed before the court indicated that, for uncomplicated possession of a stun gun, a sentence below 12 months after a contested trial would generally be appropriate. A two-year term was consequently excessive. The guilty plea supported a sentence of six months.
5. A consecutive sentence remained appropriate because the appellant committed the later burglary whilst on bail for the weapons offence. The court observed that both matters ought ordinarily to have been dealt with together so that the totality of offending could be considered by the same judge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the burglary sentence.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: On 16 April 2009, following a guilty plea to possessing a prohibited weapon, imposed two years’ imprisonment consecutive to an existing two-year burglary sentence.