Bexley, R. v

Where exceptional circumstances justify a sentence below the statutory minimum for possessing a prohibited firearm, the sentencing court must still begin with Parliament’s minimum term and give proper weight to its deterrent purpose. A substantial reduction may nevertheless be justified by the exceptional features of the offence and offender, followed by appropriate credit for an early guilty plea.

A judge should state openly whether guilty-plea credit has been given and its amount. However, the appellate question remains whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The omission will not justify intervention where the sentence and the sentencing remarks show that proper credit was in fact reflected.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Canterbury to possessing a prohibited firearm, possessing ammunition without a firearms certificate, and failing to surrender to bail. The firearm had been taken from another person, retained for four days, and voluntarily handed to the police. It was inoperable because its firing pin was missing, although it could be made functional with additional components and skill.

The sentencing judge found exceptional circumstances and therefore imposed two years’ imprisonment for the firearm offence, below the five-year statutory minimum. The appellant appealed on the basis that the judge had not expressly stated the credit allowed for his early guilty plea and that the sentence was excessive. The central issue was whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The immediate custodial sentence was necessary and the two-year sentence for possessing the prohibited firearm was not manifestly excessive.

2. Although the appellant’s basis of plea, voluntary surrender of the weapon, mental-health difficulties, threats, and the firearm’s temporarily inoperable condition justified exceptional circumstances, the sentencing exercise had to begin with Parliament’s five-year minimum term. That minimum reflected a policy of deterring possession of potentially deadly firearms.

3. The court held that a reduction from five years to a notional three-year sentence after trial properly reflected the exceptional features. The appellant’s plea, entered at the earliest opportunity, then attracted full one-third credit, producing the two-year sentence imposed. The court considered that conclusion particularly justified because the weapon remained potentially lethal and the appellant had committed further weapons offences while unlawfully at large.

4. The court endorsed the submission that a sentencing judge should state in open court both that guilty-plea credit has been allowed and its amount. That practice promotes public confidence and permits an informed assessment of a possible appeal. The omission was regrettable, but it did not establish excessive sentence: read as a whole, the sentencing remarks supported the inference that the judge had allowed the appropriate credit.

5. The court noted that sentences of three years after trial, and two years after full credit for an early plea, had been endorsed for exceptional short-term possession of non-lethal disguised Tasers: R v Rodgers (Georgina) [2016] EWCA Crim 801, R v Paterson (Todd David) [2017] EWCA Crim 1950, and R v Hussain [2018] EWCA Crim 2662. Those comparisons reinforced the conclusion that this sentence was not excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed: [2019] EWCA Crim 1018.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 19 November 2018, following guilty pleas, the appellant received two years’ imprisonment for possessing a prohibited firearm, concurrent sentences for ammunition possession and failure to surrender to bail, and an order that 62 days on remand count towards sentence.