R v Raymond Frederick Nugent

Whether an item is a firearm is assessed when it was possessed. It remains a firearm if only minor, non-specialist repair is needed before it can discharge a projectile. The Firearms Act 1982 defence for readily convertible imitation firearms does not require a separate direction where the issue is whether the item already satisfies the firearm definition under the Firearms Act 1968. If the prosecution fails to prove that the item was a firearm, acquittal follows. For a statutory five-year minimum sentence, exceptional circumstances must make that minimum arbitrary and disproportionate, having regard to all relevant circumstances. Here, convictions were upheld, but sentences exceeding five years were manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook of 45 offences under the Firearms Act 1968 and had pleaded guilty to two further offences. He received a total sentence of seven and a half years’ imprisonment.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction, arguing that the statutory defence in section 1(5) of the Firearms Act 1982 should have been left to the jury. He also appealed against sentence, contending that exceptional circumstances justified departure from the mandatory minimum and, alternatively, that the sentences were excessive.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The appeal against sentence was allowed in part.

1. Firearm or imitation firearm. The court applied R v Heddell [2016] EWCA Crim 443. The 1982 Act extends the 1968 Act to imitation firearms that are readily convertible, and section 1(6) defines the relevant circumstances. It does not alter the position where an item already satisfies the definition of a firearm under section 57(1) but requires minor repair or alteration before discharge. Whether the item was a firearm when possessed was a factual question for the jury. If the prosecution failed to prove that fact, the appellant was entitled to acquittal; there was no separate section 1(5) defence to leave to the jury.
2. Other conviction grounds. The proposed amendments concerning the date of manufacture and lethality were too late and without merit. The trial judge had directed the jury according to the law applicable when the appellant possessed the items.
3. Mandatory minimum sentences. The court applied the eight considerations identified in R v Nancarrow [2019] 2 Cr App R(S) 4. The appellant’s collection of more than 20 converted firearms, the less than secure storage, and his knowledge that his conduct was unlawful meant that the five-year minimum was not arbitrary or disproportionate. There were therefore no exceptional circumstances justifying a lesser minimum.
4. Excessive sentences and orders. Age, positive character, psychiatric difficulties, delay and care for his wife were strong mitigating features. Although they did not create exceptional circumstances, the sentences above five years were manifestly excessive. Those sentences were quashed and replaced with five-year sentences, reducing the total sentence to five years. Forty-nine days of qualifying curfew were specified to count towards the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The appeal against sentence was allowed in part, and the total sentence was reduced to five years: [2023] EWCA Crim 1649.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook The appellant was convicted on 14 October 2022 and sentenced on 20 January 2023 to seven and a half years’ imprisonment. No citation for the Crown Court decision was stated in the judgment.