Asif, R. v

For possession of prohibited firearms and associated ammunition acquired together and stored in the same place, consecutive sentences must not circumvent the statutory maximum under the Firearms Act 1968. The aggregate concurrent sentence must not exceed that maximum, reduced by the guilty-plea credit properly due.

In drug sentencing, the overall weight determines harm at the first stage of the guideline. Purity is not used to reduce that weight, although particularly high purity may aggravate sentence at the second stage.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton to drug-supply offences and offences involving prohibited firearms, ammunition and a prohibited weapon. Large quantities of heroin, cocaine and synthetic cannabinoid, together with several firearms and live ammunition, were recovered from premises and a car associated with him.

He received a total sentence of 20 years and 10 months’ imprisonment. By leave of the single judge, he appealed against sentence. He contended that he had not received the stated credit for guilty pleas on the drug offences and that the consecutive sentence for ammunition unlawfully took the total for the firearms offences above the statutory maximum.

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed in part. The drug sentences were upheld. Although the judge made an arithmetical error when calculating guilty-plea credit, the resulting concurrent term of 10 years and six months was not manifestly excessive.

2. The judge had also erred in treating drug purity as reducing the weight relevant to the first stage of the sentencing guideline. At that stage the overall weight determines the harm category. Purity becomes relevant only at the second stage and may aggravate sentence where particularly high. On the correct approach, a 16-year sentence after trial for the drug offending was available; after full credit, it supported the sentence imposed.

3. The court followed R v Ralphs [2010] 2 Cr App R(S) 30. Where prohibited firearms and appropriate ammunition were acquired on a single occasion and kept in the same hiding place, totality and the rule against consecutive terms for the same incident prevent consecutive sentences being used to evade the statutory maximum. The principle does not govern materially different cases involving acquisition at different times or storage at different locations.

4. All the firearms and ammunition here were stored in the car boot, with no evidence of separate acquisition. The aggregate of 10 years and four months for the firearms offences therefore exceeded the 10-year statutory maximum. Applying appropriate one-third guilty-plea credit, the firearms total could not exceed six years and eight months.

5. The sentences on counts 4, 5 and 6 were quashed. Concurrent sentences of six years and eight months on counts 4 and 5, and three years on count 6, were substituted. The remaining sentences stood. The total sentence was reduced to 17 years and two months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2018] EWCA Crim 2297, allowed the appeal against sentence in part and reduced the total sentence to 17 years and two months.

• Crown Court at Wolverhampton — on 14 December 2017, imposed a total sentence of 20 years and 10 months following guilty pleas. No citation was stated.