Allen, R. v

Under the statutory minimum-sentence regime for prohibited firearms, exceptional circumstances must be assessed holistically. The court must weigh the offender’s personal mitigation with the nature, duration and risks of the offending. The exception prevents a mandatory minimum sentence from producing a disproportionate or arbitrary punishment.

On a sentence appeal, the court will not disturb the sentencing judge’s conclusion unless it is clearly wrong. It may nevertheless reduce a custodial term which, following a reassessment of all circumstances and fresh accepted evidence, is manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Inner London Crown Court to possessing a prohibited firearm, ammunition and other prohibited weapons. He received two years’ imprisonment, concurrent sentences being imposed on the remaining counts.

A five-year minimum sentence ordinarily applied to the prohibited-firearm offence unless exceptional circumstances existed. The sentencing judge found such circumstances, including the applicant’s age, health, guilty plea and the condition of the weapons, but held that immediate custody remained necessary.

The applicant sought to challenge both immediate custody and the length of the sentence. The Court of Appeal considered the seriousness and insecure storage of the weapons and ammunition, together with further evidence concerning the applicant’s wife and his developing dementia.

Appeal allowed. The court granted leave and reduced the sentence from two years’ imprisonment to 12 months.

1. The court accepted that the statutory regime required a five-year minimum sentence unless exceptional circumstances existed. The approach identified in R v Rehman [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 77 was holistic. Its purpose was to ensure that the minimum sentence did not produce a disproportionate or arbitrary punishment.

2. The sentencing judge had properly found exceptional circumstances and had been entitled to depart from the minimum. She had also been entitled to regard immediate custody as appropriate. The applicant knew that he was prohibited from possessing firearms, possessed several weapons, kept usable or readily usable weapons and live ammunition for a substantial period, and stored them insecurely at premises which he said were vulnerable to intruders.

3. The court applied the appellate restraint stated in R v Rehman [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 77. The conclusion that custody was necessary was not clearly wrong. However, the total term had to be reassessed in light of the applicant’s circumstances and the new accepted evidence of his wife’s severe distress and his mental condition.

4. Although custody remained justified, two years was manifestly excessive in these exceptional circumstances. A term of 12 months was the just result.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — granted leave and allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the custodial term to 12 months: [2011] EWCA Crim 1095.
• Inner London Crown Court — sentenced the applicant on 11 March 2011, following guilty pleas, to two years’ imprisonment.