Ali, R v

In sentencing for serious firearms importation and supply, public protection is paramount. The fact that an offender did not personally use a weapon does not preclude a finding of future dangerousness. Deterrent and punitive sentences are required, and a discretionary life sentence may be justified.

Where the statutory dangerousness regime does not apply, the relevant inquiry is whether the offender has committed a very serious offence and whether there are good grounds to believe that the offender may remain a serious danger to the public for an indeterminate period. Rarity or exceptionality is not a separate legal test.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at St Albans of conspiracies to import prohibited firearms and ammunition, and of transferring a prohibited firearm and ammunition. He led an organised crime group which imported military-grade weapons and ammunition from the Netherlands on two occasions for onward criminal supply.

He received life imprisonment on the principal conspiracy count, with a minimum term of 10 years and nine and a half months. He appealed the life sentence. He contended that the judge had misapplied the firearms-sentencing guidance and had been wrong to impose a discretionary life sentence when Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 225 did not apply.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The court held that serious firearms importation and supply engages acute public-protection concerns. Applying the guidance in R v Wilkinson [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 100, it rejected the argument that an importer who passes weapons to others is thereby less dangerous or that the offending is not specially injurious to the public. Military-grade firearms supplied to criminal groups may be used for grave crime or to instil fear in further criminality.

3. Although the principal offence was not a specified offence in Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a discretionary life sentence remained available outside the statutory life-sentence regimes. The court held that the two-condition approach in Attorney General's Reference No 32 of 1996 (Whittaker) [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 261 and R v Chapman [2000] Cr App R (S) 378 should be applied, rather than the earlier threefold formulation in R v Hodgson (1968) 52 Cr App R 113. The offence must be very serious, and there must be good grounds for believing that the offender may remain a serious danger to the public for a period that cannot reliably be estimated at sentence.

4. The judge was entitled to find both conditions satisfied. The appellant led a sophisticated group, arranged repeated importation despite police intervention, had extensive criminal contacts, and was prepared to supply lethal weapons for profit. Those facts supported a conclusion that he posed an enduring risk of very serious further offending.

5. The court also held that, although discretionary life sentences of this kind will be rare, rarity or exceptionality does not define when they are appropriate. The judge could consider the totality of the evidence at trial when assessing dangerousness.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appellant's sentence appeal.
• Crown Court at St Albans On 17 August 2017, imposed life imprisonment for the firearms-importation conspiracy, with a minimum term of 10 years and nine and a half months.