Corlett, R v

When sentencing an offence involving a firearm or imitation firearm, the court should assess the nature of the weapon, its use, the offender’s intention, and the offender’s record. A loaded air pistol deliberately discharged at a victim to cause injury is serious offending, particularly where it is used to intimidate and assault the victim in her home.

Credit for a guilty plea and the totality principle do not justify a sentence that fails to reflect that seriousness. On an Attorney General’s reference, the Court of Appeal may substitute a substantially greater sentence and vary the related driving disqualification.

The Attorney General referred as unduly lenient the aggregate sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment imposed at Bolton Crown Court on 25 August 2017.

The offender had pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, perverting the course of justice, dangerous driving, criminal damage, and harassment causing fear of violence. The principal incident involved the deliberate discharge of a loaded air pistol at his partner during domestic abuse, causing injury. Later offending included pressure on her to withdraw her truthful complaint and deliberate dangerous driving while she was a passenger.

The central question was whether the overall sentence, and in particular the concurrent 12-month sentence for the firearms offence, was unduly lenient.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The court granted leave and substituted a sentence of four years’ imprisonment on the count of possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. The other custodial sentences remained unchanged, producing a total sentence of five years and eight months.

2. The correct approach to offences involving firearms and imitation firearms was that stated in Avis [1998] 1 Cr. App. R. 420. Sentencing requires consideration of the weapon, its use, the offender’s intention, and the offender’s record.

3. The firearm was a real air pistol, loaded and deliberately discharged at the victim. The offender possessed it to make her believe that violence would be used against her, and he caused actual bodily harm in the course of domestic abuse in her home. Those features made the offending on the firearms and assault counts particularly serious.

4. The sentencing judge had properly allowed credit for the guilty pleas and considered totality. Nevertheless, the concurrent 12-month sentences on the firearms and assault counts did not reflect the gravity of the offending. There was also force in the Attorney General’s criticism of the sentences for perverting the course of justice and dangerous driving, although the court left those individual sentences unchanged.

5. The proper starting point for the firearms count was more than four and a half years’ imprisonment. After credit for the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence was four years. Taking account of sections 35A and 35B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the driving disqualification was varied to 50 months, including a discretionary period of 24 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The sentence on the imitation-firearm count was increased to four years, resulting in a total of five years and eight months’ imprisonment. The driving disqualification was varied under sections 35A and 35B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Bolton Crown Court: On 25 August 2017, the offender received consecutive and concurrent sentences totalling 32 months’ imprisonment for the offences to which he had pleaded guilty.