Watson, R. v

A sentence below a prescribed statutory minimum for possession of a prohibited firearm requires genuine exceptional circumstances. Apparent reluctance to hold a weapon, absent duress, is not exceptional merely because an offender of good character was persuaded or pressured to keep it. Vague information which cannot enable police investigation is not substantial mitigation. Nor is the use of a family car a mitigating feature where it may expose family members to implication.

Possession of a loaded, sawn-off shotgun being transported for delivery is gravely aggravating. Its intended recipient need not be identified for the offence to warrant at least the prescribed minimum sentence.

The Attorney General sought leave under Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 36, to refer as unduly lenient a sentence imposed on Zekel Watson.

At Birmingham Crown Court, Watson pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited firearm. He was acquitted of a separate count of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. Police had found a loaded sawn-off shotgun, with its serial number erased, concealed in the boot of a car Watson was driving. The journey was intended to deliver the weapon to another person.

The sentencing judge treated the circumstances as exceptional and imposed three years and six months’ imprisonment. The central issue was whether those circumstances justified a sentence below the prescribed statutory sentence.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The court granted leave, quashed the sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment, and substituted five years’ imprisonment.

2. The Crown Court had been entitled to sentence on Watson’s account that he had received the gun two days before the journey. That account did not materially reduce culpability. The court rejected the conclusion that there were exceptional circumstances justifying a sentence below the prescribed statutory sentence.

3. Claimed unwillingness to possess the firearm was not exceptional. Persons of apparently good character may be chosen to carry or store lethal weapons because they are less likely to attract police attention. Watson knew what he was doing, and nothing in the evidence suggested duress.

4. The information Watson gave about the person who had supplied the firearm did not amount to substantial assistance. It did not enable the police to identify or pursue that person. The fact that the car was also used by Watson’s mother and sister was not mitigation. It could instead aggravate the offence because it risked implicating them.

5. The offence was exceptionally serious in its features. Watson possessed a loaded, shortened shotgun with an erased serial number while transporting it for delivery. The absence of an identified intended recipient did not lessen the danger: the weapon was immediately capable of use in gun crime. The court held that the case required at least the prescribed minimum sentence and that a longer sentence would also have been open to the sentencing judge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, granted leave, quashed the sentence, and substituted five years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Birmingham — Watson pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm and was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. He was acquitted by a jury of the separate count of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.