Robinson, R v

For the mandatory minimum sentence for a prohibited firearm offence, exceptional circumstances must be assessed holistically. The court must consider all circumstances relating to both the offender and the offence. A combination of features may be exceptional even if no individual feature is.

On appeal, intervention is generally justified only if the sentencing judge was clearly wrong in deciding whether exceptional circumstances existed. An initially suicidal purpose for acquiring a firearm does not necessarily make the case exceptional where, after that purpose has passed, the offender leaves the weapon insecurely stored and exposed to a significant risk of falling into the wrong hands.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Carlisle Crown Court to possessing a firearm with a barrel shorter than 30 centimetres, contrary to section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. He had taken his uncle's lawfully held shotgun in order to kill himself and shortened its barrel to remove it from the farm.

He later abandoned his intention to commit suicide, disposed of the cartridge, and left the shortened shotgun in an unsecured wardrobe in his bed-sit. The owner subsequently found it and contacted the police.

The Recorder imposed the five-year statutory minimum sentence. The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal against sentence, contending that the circumstances of the offence and his serious mental ill health were exceptional.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to conclude that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a sentence below the five-year minimum required by section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968.

2. The court applied the guidance in Rehman & Wood [2005] 1 Cr App R(S). Exceptional circumstances must be assessed in the round. A single striking feature may suffice, but a combination of features may also be exceptional although none does so alone. A lesser sentence may be justified where the statutory minimum would be arbitrary and disproportionate.

3. The appellate question was whether the sentencing judge was clearly wrong in finding exceptional circumstances absent. The court would not readily interfere with that evaluative judgment unless that threshold were met.

4. The Recorder had accepted both that the firearm was acquired for suicide and that the barrel was shortened only to facilitate its removal. Those matters were unusual and mitigatory. However, once the applicant abandoned suicide, he left the shortened firearm in an insecure wardrobe while often absent from the property. That created a very significant risk that it could fall into the wrong hands.

5. Taking all matters together, the Recorder's conclusion was not clearly wrong. The court also noted the gravity of firearm possession, as emphasised in R v Wilkinson & Ors [2009] EWCA Crim 1925.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the renewed appeal against the five-year sentence.
• Crown Court at Carlisle: on 17 July 2009, the Recorder sentenced the applicant to five years' imprisonment following his guilty plea.