Gumble, R v

A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for the offence of which an offender was convicted is unlawful and must be quashed and replaced with a lawful sentence. Where the relevant maximum under Firearms Act 1968 Schedule 6 was five years, a seven-year sentence for unlicensed possession of a firearm could not stand.

A renewed and substantially late application for leave to appeal sentence may be refused where there is no good reason for extending time and the total sentence, although long, is not manifestly excessive for very serious offending sentenced in accordance with the applicable guidance.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Croydon Crown Court to drug-supply and criminal-property offences. He was convicted after trial of possessing a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life. On a further firearm count, he had pleaded guilty only to unlicensed possession and had been acquitted of intent to endanger life.

On 10 March 2017, the Crown Court imposed a total of 13 years and six months’ imprisonment. That total included seven years for the unlicensed-possession count. The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal sentence after the single judge had refused it. The application was 189 days late in respect of the wider grounds.

The central issues were whether the sentence on the possession count was lawful and whether time should be extended to pursue the remaining challenge to the overall sentence.

1. The court granted leave to appeal for the limited purpose of correcting an unlawful sentence. The applicant had been convicted on count 1 only of possessing a firearm without a certificate, contrary to section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. The firearm did not fall within section 4. Schedule 6 therefore fixed a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. The seven-year sentence on that count was unlawful.

2. The court quashed that sentence and substituted four years and six months’ imprisonment, concurrent with the other sentences. The substituted term preserved the same 10 per cent discount for the guilty plea entered on the first day of trial. An extension of time was granted for that limited appeal.

3. The court refused the remaining application. There was no good reason to extend time by 189 days. The delay resulted from the correct advice of the trial lawyers that an appeal would have no merit. In any event, the sentencing judge had carefully addressed the appropriate guidance and firearm sentencing authorities. The drugs, money, firearms and evidence of drug adulteration demonstrated serious offending. The total sentence of 13 years and six months, though long, was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2018] EWCA Crim 1501, the court allowed the appeal only to substitute a lawful concurrent sentence on count 1. It refused an extension of time and leave in relation to the remaining sentence grounds.
• Croydon Crown Court: On 10 March 2017, imposed a total sentence of 13 years and six months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to drug and criminal-property offences and convictions for firearm and ammunition offences.