Paget, R v

A sentencing court must give effect to statutory minimum terms for firearms offences while also applying the totality principle. Where a separate offence is sentenced under a guideline, the sentence for that offence should, where practicable, remain within the applicable guideline range; the required aggregate may instead be achieved by making the minimum firearms terms consecutive.

For section 18 wounding, very serious injuries caused by a firearm can themselves establish greater harm and justify the highest guideline category. A finding of dangerousness does not require a pre-sentence report where sufficient information, including the circumstances of the offending, demonstrates a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences.

The appellant appealed, with leave, against sentences imposed at the Crown Court at Leicester on 13 July 2017. He had pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited firearm and to possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. After trial, he was convicted of wounding with intent.

He received concurrent sentences, including an extended sentence of 25 years for the wounding count, comprising 20 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence. The appeal challenged the category and starting point for the wounding, the weight given to mitigation, the finding of dangerousness, and the resulting extended sentence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The overall sentence, although severe, was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The judge was entitled to treat the section 18 wounding as a category 1 offence under the Assault Definitive Guideline. It was unnecessary to decide whether the attempted second firing amounted to a sustained or repeated assault. The bullet’s passage through the complainant’s genitals and leg caused serious injury and was itself a greater-harm factor. The appellant’s premeditated carriage and use of a loaded handgun, the nightclub setting, and his disposal of the weapon supported the assessment of high culpability.

3. The 15-year sentence for the wounding, before accounting for the firearms minimum terms, was proper. The court accepted that the statutory minimum terms had to be given effect while totality was maintained, consistently with R v Wasim Raza [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 56. The better structure would have been 15 years for the wounding and concurrent five-year firearms sentences consecutive to it, producing 20 years’ custody. The judge’s different structure reached the same lawful and proportionate aggregate.

4. A pre-sentence report was not required before finding dangerousness under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The circumstances of the offences provided sufficient information to establish a present and continuing significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences. A five-year extended licence was appropriate.

5. The concurrent extended licences were correctly imposed. The court approved the guidance in R v Brown [2006] EWCA Crim 1996 and R v Joyce [2010] EWCA Crim 2848 against consecutive extended-licence terms.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2018] EWCA Crim 635.
• Crown Court at Leicester: On 13 July 2017, the appellant was sentenced after guilty pleas to two firearms counts and conviction after trial for wounding with intent.