El Sheikh, R v

In sentencing for possession of a prohibited firearm, the court should first identify the proper sentence after a contested trial by assessing the weapon, ammunition, criminal use or purpose, and the offender’s record. It must then allow a distinct reduction for a timely guilty plea.

Even where the evidence is very strong, an early plea ordinarily attracts at least a one-fifth reduction. A court must not withhold appropriate credit because a statutory maximum or minimum leaves little sentencing headroom. The sentencer should state the credit allowed and the basis on which the final sentence is reached.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames to possessing a prohibited firearm contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968. Police had seen him throw a converted pistol from a window during execution of a search warrant. The weapon could fire conventional .32 calibre ammunition, although no ammunition was found.

He had been released from a 10-year sentence for earlier firearms offences less than three months before this offence. The sentencing judge imposed seven years and six months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed, contending that the judge had failed to allow proper credit for his guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The sentence was reduced from seven years and six months to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.
2. The correct approach was first to identify the sentence after a trial. Applying the questions in Avis [1998] 1 Cr.App.R 420, the court considered the genuine and converted weapon, the absence of ammunition and evidence of actual criminal use, the likely criminal purpose, and the appellant’s very serious firearms record. His recent release from a lengthy firearms sentence placed the offence near the top of the range. The appropriate post-trial sentence was nine years’ imprisonment.
3. The court then considered credit for the prompt guilty plea. Following Caley [2012] EWCA Crim. 2821, strong or overwhelming evidence does not justify denying all credit. The public benefits of an early plea remain material, and the constraints created by a statutory maximum or minimum cannot be remedied by withholding the proper reduction.
4. The sentencing judge had not adequately addressed the definitive guideline or stated the credit allowed, despite section 174 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A full one-third reduction was not justified because the appellant had been caught with the weapon. A 25 per cent reduction from nine years was appropriate, producing six years and nine months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent of reducing the term to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: Following a guilty plea, imposed seven years and six months’ imprisonment for possession of a prohibited firearm.