R v Paul Anthony Glynn

When several firearm or ammunition offences arise from possession, consecutive sentences should not be imposed merely to evade the statutory maximum. The court must make fact-specific findings about whether the items were received on one or more occasions and apply totality. Separate deposits may justify consecutive terms, but the number of consecutive terms must reflect the occasions properly proved. An early guilty plea ordinarily attracts the applicable guideline reduction. A statutory minimum limits the resulting sentence, but does not cap credit at 20 per cent. The court also emphasised the value of checking proposed sentences using the Sentencing Council’s ACE tool.

The appellant pleaded guilty to numerous firearms and ammunition offences after weapons and ammunition were found throughout his home. The Crown Court at Durham imposed an aggregate sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment, including three consecutive terms of six years and four months for prohibited-firearm offences.

He appealed on the grounds that the sentences should have been concurrent and that the judge had wrongly limited credit for his guilty plea to 20 per cent. The central issues were whether the evidence established separate occasions of receipt and whether the statutory minimum restricted the amount of guilty-plea credit.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The court applied the totality principle and the guidance in Attorney General's Reference No 57 of 2009 (R v Ralphs) [2009] EWCA Crim 2555 and R v Asif [2018] EWCA Crim 2297. Consecutive sentences should not normally be imposed for offences arising from the same incident or transaction, and must not be used to evade the statutory maximum for a single offence.

2. The question whether the offences arose from one incident or separate acts of receipt was fact-specific and had to be determined to the criminal standard. The appellant was an armourer rather than merely a custodian. The distribution of weapons and ammunition around the property, together with the other evidence, entitled the court to find at least two occasions of receipt. It did not support a finding that each item arrived separately.

3. The original sentence lacked a sufficient explanation for three consecutive terms. The appropriate structure was two consecutive terms on counts 1 and 3, each based on a sentence of nine years before credit. The remaining firearms sentences were concurrent. The resulting pre-credit total was 18 years.

4. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, an early guilty plea attracts the applicable reduction. The statutory minimum operates as a floor for the sentence after credit; it does not mean that credit is always limited to 20 per cent. The plea was entered at the first opportunity and warranted one-third credit. The total sentence was therefore reduced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The sentences on the other counts remained unaffected.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The sentence appeal was allowed in part and the aggregate sentence reduced from 19 years to 12 years’ imprisonment: [2023] EWCA Crim 1494.

2. Crown Court at Durham: Following guilty pleas, the appellant was sentenced on 21 April 2023 to a total of 19 years’ imprisonment.