Ralphs, R v

Where firearms, ammunition and related items are received and concealed in a single transaction, consecutive sentences should not be used simply to exceed the statutory maximum for the individual firearms offences. The principles of totality and concurrency ordinarily apply to offences forming one incident, unless genuinely separate criminal events or exceptional circumstances justify consecutive terms. A person who knowingly stores lethal weapons for others makes a serious and distinctive contribution to firearms crime. The sentence must nevertheless remain within the statutory framework fixed by Parliament. Serious aggravating features may justify a substantial concurrent sentence, including multiple operational weapons, compatible ammunition and a sound moderator.

The Attorney General referred as unduly lenient a sentence imposed on Peter Ralphs under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Ralphs pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Liverpool to possessing two prohibited automatic weapons, expanding and other ammunition, and a sound moderator.

The weapons and ammunition were found together in a toolbox under the stairs at his home. He was sentenced as a minder, rather than as a distributor or supplier, and received concurrent terms of six years’ imprisonment.

The central issue was whether the court could impose consecutive sentences for the weapons and ammunition, which had been received and hidden together, in order to reflect the offender’s overall criminality despite the statutory maximum for the individual firearms offences.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The six-year concurrent sentence was unduly lenient and was increased to eight years’ imprisonment. Consecutive sentences were not justified.

2. The court applied the sentencing scheme for the relevant offences under the Firearms Act 1968. For an adult offender, specified firearms offences carried a five-year minimum custodial term unless exceptional circumstances applied, while the maximum was ten years. The minimum was not reduced for a guilty plea, although a sentence below the maximum would normally reflect an appropriate plea reduction: R v Jordan and others [2005] 2 CAR (S) 44.

3. Totality required an aggregate sentence proportionate to the overall criminality. Consecutive terms should not normally be imposed for offences arising from the same incident or transaction. R v Noble [2003] 1CAR(S) 312 illustrated that several grave consequences of one act did not justify consecutive terms. Simultaneity was not invariably decisive, as R v Fletcher [2002] 2 CAR (S) 127 showed. Exceptional circumstances could justify departure from the usual approach, but offences committed on genuinely separate occasions were materially different: R v Jameson and Jameson [2009] 2 CAR (S) 26.

4. Here, the weapons, ammunition and silencer came into the offender’s possession on one occasion and were hidden in one place. Consecutive terms would therefore circumvent the statutory maximum merely because it was considered too low. That was a matter for Parliament, not a reason to disapply established sentencing principles.

5. Nevertheless, the offender held a small armoury comprising two lethal operational weapons, ammunition capable of use in each, and a silencer. His role as a minder and the intimidatory background mitigated the position, but did not remove his serious contribution to firearms crime. The guilty plea warranted some credit, though it was not tendered on the basis ultimately accepted by the judge. Eight years’ imprisonment was the proper concurrent sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney General reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the sentence unduly lenient and increased it to eight years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: His Honour Judge Boulton imposed concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment on the prohibited-weapons counts and concurrent terms of three years on the remaining counts.