Jalloh, R v

Sentencing for possession of a shortened shotgun requires an assessment of the Avis factors. These include the nature and condition of the weapon, the presence of ammunition, actual or intended criminal use, the surrounding criminal context, the offender’s record and the statutory maximum. Comparable sentencing decisions must be read in their factual context and may provide little assistance where material features differ. The aggregate sentence must also be proportionate when firearms and drug offences are sentenced together.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Harrow of possessing a shortened shotgun contrary to sections 1 and 4(4) of the Firearms Act 1968. He also pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine and heroin with intent to supply.

He received five years’ imprisonment for the firearms offence and concurrent three-year terms for the drug offences, ordered consecutively to the firearms sentence, making eight years in total. He appealed against sentence. The central issues were whether the five-year firearms sentence was excessive and whether the total sentence properly reflected totality.

Appeal allowed in part. The court reduced the firearms sentence from five years to four years. It rejected the challenge to the three-year sentence for the drug offences and held that the resulting total of seven years was appropriate.

1. The court applied the firearms-sentencing considerations in Avis [1998] 2 Cr App R(S) 178. The shotgun was genuine and, because its barrels had been shortened, was a weapon of a kind associated with criminal use. Its condition and the absence of ammunition were relevant. There was no evidence of prior use or of a particular intended future use.
2. The firearm was nevertheless found with controlled drugs, which showed the criminal context in which the appellant was operating. His previous convictions were also relevant. The court took account of the seven-year maximum for the aggravated offence under section 4(4) of the Firearms Act 1968.
3. The court considered the comparative authorities. Gourley [1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 148 and Herbert [2001] 1 Cr App R(S) 21 illustrated the importance of their particular facts. O'Shea [2000] 2 Cr App R(S) 412 gave no useful assistance, and Beaumont [2004] 1 Cr App R(S) 64 was of little assistance because it involved no evidence of criminal intent.
4. Having assessed those matters, the court held that five years for the firearm was somewhat too high and that four years fitted the circumstances. The drug sentences were not excessive in themselves. Consecutive operation produced a total sentence of seven years, which properly reflected the overall criminality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal against sentence in part: [2009] EWCA Crim 456. The firearms term was reduced from five years to four years; the drug terms and their consecutive operation were upheld.
• Crown Court at Harrow — on 4 September 2008, convicted the appellant of possessing a shortened shotgun and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. Following guilty pleas to drug-supply offences, imposed concurrent three-year terms consecutive to the firearms term, making eight years in total.