Rollings, R v

In sentencing an offender for a firearms offence, the court should assess the weapon and ammunition, any use of it, the offender’s intended use and the offender’s record. A statutory five-year minimum term is a floor, not a mandatory sentence or a sentencing starting point.

Where a loaded prohibited firearm with lethal ammunition is intended for supply to criminals, public protection requires deterrent and punitive sentencing. Earlier indicative ranges may require substantial upward revision where subsequent legislative and sentencing developments demonstrate the gravity of such offending.

The respondent was arrested carrying a loaded .357 Magnum revolver with live expanding ammunition. He pleaded guilty at the Woolwich Crown Court to possessing a prohibited weapon and ammunition, and later pleaded guilty to possessing the firearm with intent to enable another person to endanger life.

Following a Goodyear indication, the judge imposed five years’ imprisonment on the principal count, with concurrent terms on the alternative possession counts. The Solicitor General obtained leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.

The central issue was whether the five-year statutory minimum adequately reflected the seriousness of possession of a loaded lethal firearm intended for criminal supply.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The sentence of five years’ imprisonment on the count of possessing a firearm with intent to enable another to endanger life was unduly lenient. It was quashed and replaced with a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

2. The court applied the sentencing questions in Tony Avis and others. The firearm was genuine, loaded and lethal. Its ammunition was especially dangerous. The respondent intended to supply it to criminal associates, rather than merely keep it, and the potential consequences for victims were grave. His relative youth and absence of previous firearms convictions provided limited mitigation.

3. The five-year term under the Firearms Act 1968 was a statutory minimum. It was neither a mandatory sentence nor a sentencing starting point. It should not have been treated as the finishing point in an offence involving a loaded firearm and an intention to facilitate the endangerment of life.

4. Public protection was paramount where a gun was made available for criminal use. Deterrent and punitive sentences were required. The court accepted that firearms supply sustains violent criminality and that developments since the earlier sentencing range, including the statutory minimum regime, justified a significant increase in sentence.

5. The court allowed 10 per cent credit for the late guilty plea and took account of the respondent having already been sentenced and warned of a possible reference. It left the concurrent sentences on the alternative possession counts undisturbed because the exceptional-circumstances issue on one count had not been argued. Time on remand continued to count towards the substituted sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2012] EWCA Crim 86, allowed the Attorney General’s reference and substituted 10 years’ imprisonment for the five-year sentence on the principal count.
• Woolwich Crown Court — imposed five years’ imprisonment on the principal count, with concurrent sentences on the alternative possession counts.