Nancarrow, R. v

Under Firearms Act 1968 section 51A(2), the five-year minimum term for an adult possessing a disguised firearm serves a deterrent purpose. Departure is justified only where the circumstances are truly exceptional because the minimum term would otherwise be arbitrary and disproportionate.

The assessment must be holistic. A court must consider the nature and use of the weapon, the possessor’s intention and record, together with health and all other relevant circumstances. It is wrong to treat rejection of an offender’s account, or the insufficiency of one mitigating factor alone, as determinative of the statutory exception.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Reading Crown Court to possessing CS gas canisters, disguised stun guns and an electrified knuckle-duster, and to possessing extreme pornographic images. The Recorder imposed concurrent terms, including the statutory five-year minimum terms for the disguised firearms.

The appellant appealed against those minimum terms. He contended that exceptional circumstances arose from the circumstances of possession, delay in prosecution, and serious mental and physical health problems. The central issue was whether those matters justified disapplying the minimum sentence required by section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the Recorder had adopted an erroneous method by treating his rejection of the appellant’s basis of plea as conclusive against exceptional circumstances. He should instead have assessed all relevant matters together.
2. The statutory exception in section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 requires a holistic assessment. Applying R v Zakir Rehman and Wood [2005] EWCA Crim 2056 and R v Avis [1998] 2 Cr App R (S) 178, the court considered the nature of the weapons, their use, the appellant’s intention in possessing them, and his record. It also considered his health and the prosecutorial delay.
3. The weapons were not lethal, and the appellant’s record was a point in his favour. However, the text message showed that he had put stun guns into circulation, or at least knowingly permitted that to happen, and wanted them returned. That conduct engaged the mischief at which the deterrent minimum sentence was directed. The number of weapons, their storage and the message did not support a purely defensive explanation.
4. The medical evidence showed that the appellant’s physical and mental health was being satisfactorily managed in prison. The delay was unfortunate, but neither it nor the health evidence, whether separately or cumulatively, made the five-year term unduly onerous or disproportionate. The circumstances were therefore not truly exceptional, and the concurrent five-year sentences remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2019] EWCA Crim 470.
• Crown Court at Reading: on 15 December 2017, imposed concurrent five-year minimum terms for possessing disguised firearms, together with concurrent sentences for the other offences.