Hussain, R v

In sentencing for possession of a prohibited firearm, the court must assess the relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the offending. A substantial sentence may be justified where a deactivated prohibited weapon can readily be restored to use, compatible live ammunition is possessed, and the evidence shows involvement in obtaining firearms rather than mere custody.

A sentence at the upper end of the appropriate range is not manifestly excessive if those features are properly weighed with mitigation, including good character.

The appellant was convicted after trial at Sheffield Crown Court of possessing a prohibited revolver, possessing ammunition without a firearm certificate, and possessing two imitation firearms in a public place. The revolver had previously been deactivated but could readily be reactivated. Compatible live ammunition was found with it.

On 16 April 2018, the judge imposed concurrent sentences, with nine years’ imprisonment on the prohibited-firearm count. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the nine-year term was manifestly excessive. He accepted that a five-year minimum term applied to that count and did not separately challenge the sentences on the remaining counts.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the concurrent sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The sentencing judge correctly considered the relevant factors identified in R v Avis [1998] 1 Cr App R 420, together with the mitigation. He was entitled to impose a global sentence on the prohibited-firearm count to reflect the totality of the offending.

3. The prohibited revolver was a particularly serious weapon for sentencing purposes. Although it had been deactivated, it could easily be restored to working order. The presence of live ammunition capable of being fired by it was a serious aggravating feature.

4. The judge was also entitled to find that the appellant was not merely a custodian of the weapons. Material recovered from his mobile telephones supported the conclusion that he had been involved in sourcing and obtaining firearms.

5. The court took account of the appellant’s good character and favourable references. Those mitigating matters did not render the sentence excessive. Although the sentence was at the upper end of the range, the gravity of possessing readily adaptable firearms and compatible ammunition justified it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2018] EWCA Crim 2362.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: on 16 April 2018, following convictions after trial, imposed nine years’ imprisonment for possession of a prohibited firearm, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.