R v Lukasz Chudziak

A finding of exceptional circumstances permitting departure from a mandatory minimum sentence does not mean that the applicable sentencing guideline can be ignored. The court must impose a sentence appropriate to the individual case, whether a shorter custodial sentence or an alternative sentence. A sentence imposed in a non-guideline case does not create a general ceiling for comparable offending; each case turns on its facts and mitigation. The notional sentence after trial must be distinguished from the starting point, since it reflects mitigation before credit for a guilty plea. A sentence falling within the range open to the sentencing judge will not be manifestly excessive merely because it is above the sentence imposed in another case.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Preston to possessing a prohibited firearm contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968. Under section 311 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the offence carried a five-year mandatory minimum unless exceptional circumstances relating to the offender or offence justified a different sentence. HH Judge Hodgkinson found exceptional circumstances, imposed 31 months’ imprisonment after full guilty plea credit, and made a five-year Serious Crime Prevention Order. The applicant sought leave to appeal, arguing that the sentence remained manifestly excessive, that the judge had adopted an erroneous starting point, and that insufficient weight had been given to his mitigation. He also sought to derive a three-year ceiling from R v Francis. The central issue was whether the judge had erred in principle or imposed a sentence outside the proper range.

Leave to appeal was refused.

1. The court accepted that section 311 of the Sentencing Act 2020 created a mandatory minimum of five years, subject to exceptional circumstances relating to the offender or the offence. The sentencing judge was entitled to find exceptional circumstances cumulatively, having considered the applicant’s personal circumstances, mental health, good character, remorse, family responsibilities and the nature of the firearm.
2. Exceptional circumstances did not permit the sentencing guideline to be disregarded. The guideline required a sentence appropriate to the individual case, which could be a shorter custodial sentence or an alternative sentence. The judge had applied the relevant category 3B guideline, whose starting point was five and a half years, and had reduced the notional sentence after trial by 18 months for mitigation.
3. The four-year sentence described by the judge was the notional sentence after trial, not a starting point. It reflected the mitigating features and absence of aggravating features before credit for the guilty plea. The resulting sentence of 31 months was plainly within the range open to the judge.
4. The court rejected the attempt to derive a general three-year ceiling from R v Francis [2019] EWCA Crim 1201. A sentence in a non-guideline case is not a useful ceiling or comparator because each case depends on its facts and mitigation. Francis concerned materially different circumstances, including brief and unwitting possession of a sawn-off shotgun.
5. The sentencing remarks showed that the judge had considered the impact of custody, including the applicant’s suicidal ideation and medical evidence. The custodial and community sentencing guidelines were irrelevant because the notional sentence exceeded three years. No error of principle or manifest excess was established.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 19 June 2026, the Full Court refused leave to appeal against sentence. [2026] EWCA Crim 843
• Crown Court at Preston: On 24 March 2026, HH Judge Hodgkinson found exceptional circumstances and imposed 31 months’ imprisonment after full guilty plea credit, together with a five-year Serious Crime Prevention Order.