R v Marlon Winston Golding

When sentencing for multiple firearm-possession offences, culpability and harm must be assessed by reference to the applicable guideline and the evidence as a whole. The nature and number of weapons, compatible ammunition, antecedent convictions and surrounding conduct may justify an inference that weapons were intended for criminal use, or that the offender was reckless as to that use. The discovery of several prohibited firearms on one occasion does not mean that the offences necessarily arise from the same facts or incident. Consecutive sentences may therefore be required where concurrent sentences would fail to reflect the overall criminality.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook to possessing two prohibited firearms, a firearm without a certificate and ammunition without a certificate. He received concurrent sentences of 7½ years for the two prohibited-firearm offences, six months for possessing ammunition and a consecutive 18 months for possessing a firearm without a certificate, making nine years overall.

After the single judge refused leave, the applicant sought an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He challenged the culpability and harm categories, the assessment of mitigation and the consecutive sentence. The central issues were whether the sentencing guideline and totality principle had been correctly applied.

1. The application was refused. The court agreed with the single judge’s reasons and refused an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to infer from the type and number of weapons, compatible ammunition and the applicant’s antecedent history that the weapons were intended for a criminal purpose, or that he was reckless as to whether they would be so used. The circumstances also justified an inference of a high risk of death or serious physical or psychological harm.
3. Harm was properly placed in category 2. The loaded firearm had been left under a wheelie bin in a garden, and the weapons and ammunition were later left in a car boot on a public street. The alarm and distress caused to the workmen and neighbour were material.
4. The overall sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive. The previous firearms conviction, the short period since expiry of the earlier sentence and the marked escalation in offending were serious aggravating features. The applicant’s family circumstances were considered, but public protection properly carried greater weight.
5. The possession offences did not necessarily arise from the same facts or incident merely because the firearms were discovered on the same occasion or kept in one location. The totality principle did not require the sentence for the sawn-off shotgun to run concurrently. The overall sentence was properly constructed, just and proportionate, and could reasonably have been higher.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 26 October 2022, the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The single judge refused leave. The court refused an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal against sentence.