Burton, R. v

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm unless it was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The statutory minimum sentence reflects Parliament’s response to serious gun crime. Exceptional personal circumstances may justify a sentence below that minimum, but they do not remove the need to assess the gravity of the firearm and the offender’s conduct. A loaded sawn-off shotgun, retained for a prolonged period rather than surrendered to the police, warranted a substantial custodial sentence despite serious ill health, depression, a guilty plea and a suicide attempt.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Woolwich Crown Court to possessing a prohibited firearm contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968. He had kept a loaded sawn-off shotgun after finding it in his home and used it in an unsuccessful suicide attempt.

The sentencing judge held that exceptional circumstances existed in the appellant’s psychiatric condition and serious physical ill health. The judge therefore imposed four years’ imprisonment, rather than the ordinary minimum sentence of five years, together with a concurrent nine-month sentence for breach of a suspended sentence order.

The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the available mitigation required a lower sentence and that deterrence was not justified.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of four years’ imprisonment for possessing the prohibited firearm was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The court accepted that the appellant’s depression at the relevant time, his grave physical ill health, his guilty plea and his admissions provided substantial mitigation. Those matters had already led the sentencing judge to find exceptional personal circumstances and to impose a sentence below the five-year statutory minimum applicable to the offence.

3. Parliament’s enactment of a minimum sentence for mere possession of a firearm addressed the serious problem of gun crime. The seriousness of this case remained substantial. The weapon was a loaded sawn-off single-barrelled shotgun of a kind often used by criminals. The appellant had possessed it from at least October 2010, knew that possession was unlawful, and failed in his immediate duty to surrender it to the police after finding it.

4. Those features justified the custodial sentence notwithstanding the appellant’s personal mitigation and the argument that custody might impede his medical treatment. The concurrent sentence of nine months for breach of the suspended sentence order was left undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2012] EWCA Crim 1781.

• Crown Court at Woolwich: on 23 March 2012, imposed four years’ imprisonment for possession of a prohibited firearm and a concurrent nine-month sentence for breach of a suspended sentence order.