Faulkner, R v

In sentencing for knowingly exporting controlled military equipment, the court should assess the nature of the equipment, the quantity and value involved, the intended customer, the offender’s role, planning and knowledge, and the sophistication of the transaction. Plea and personal mitigation remain relevant. Where equipment is capable of assisting weapons which may cause multiple deaths, is knowingly destined for a region of serious concern, and may reach insurgents, immediate custody for a significant term and a deterrent element will ordinarily be justified. Strong personal mitigation does not make a sentence manifestly excessive where the offending involved a blatant and informed disregard of export-control responsibilities.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to being knowingly concerned in the export of controlled goods, contrary to section 68(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. He attempted to export 100 telescopic optical sights, for which an export licence was required, through Dubai to an ultimate destination in Iran.

On 5 October 2010, he received two and a half years’ imprisonment. He sought permission to appeal his sentence as manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether, in light of his personal mitigation and the sentencing criteria in Knight [2008] EWCA Crim. 478, the sentence was excessive in principle or length.

1. Application refused. The sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
2. The court applied the sentencing criteria identified in Knight [2008] EWCA Crim. 478. Relevant matters include the nature of the weapon or equipment, quantity and value, intended customer, the offender’s role, planning and knowledge, and the sophistication of the transaction or attempts to evade responsibility. Personal mitigation and credit for a guilty plea must also be taken into account.
3. Although the optical sights were not dangerous in isolation, they were intended for equipment capable of multiple use and multiple deaths. The quantity was not insignificant. It had to be assumed that the equipment would reach insurgents, and its intended destination in the Middle East was a serious aggravating feature.
4. The applicant was not merely peripheral. He was the front man for the consignment and knew it was destined for Iran. He repeatedly denied that knowledge until confronted with the evidence. He had previously received advice about his export-control responsibilities and later sought to portray himself as only a freight forwarder. The court treated this as a blatant and knowing disregard of the law.
5. The court recognised substantial mitigation, including bereavement, a distinguished military career, financial difficulties and credit for the guilty plea. Even excluding a possible aggravating matter concerning his association with Mr Bon, that mitigation did not make the sentence excessive. Deterrence was properly relevant, and immediate custody was inevitable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Refused permission to appeal against sentence in [2011] EWCA Crim 962.
• Southwark Crown Court. Following a guilty plea, imposed a sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment on 5 October 2010.