Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
MR JUSTICE OWEN
and
SIR BRIAN SMEDLEY
R E G I N A
-v-
PAUL STUART HOWLEY
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR STEPHEN WOOD appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT
J U D G M E N T
1. SIR BRIAN SMEDLEY: On 21_st_ May 2003 at the Crown Court at Hull before Mrs Recorder Cahill QC the appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced for possession of a bladed article to a period of three months' imprisonment. Two offensive weapons charges were also preferred, but in the end no evidence was offered in respect of them and not guilty verdicts under section 17 were entered. The appellant appeals against the sentence passed by leave of the single judge.
2. The facts which gave rise to his sentence were simply these. In the early hours of the morning of 4th December 2002 the appellant was driving his camper van in an erratic manner on a motorway when he was stopped by police officers. The van was subsequently searched. On the front passenger seat one of the officers found a large knife, with an eight-and-a-half inch blade, in a scabbard. When he was arrested and cautioned he said that it was his 'rabbiting' knife, but he later said that he had not been rabbiting with it for the last six months and there was no explanation given for its presence on the passenger seat on that occasion.
3. The appellant has no convictions for violence. What he does have, however, are convictions for driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol; and that was the position on this occasion as well.
4. When he appeared before the Beverley and The Wolds Magistrates for the offence of driving with excess alcohol on the occasion when the knife was found he was ordered to serve 100 hours' community punishment and was disqualified from driving for three years.
5. In the grounds of appeal it is said that the sentence was wrong in principle and/or manifestly excessive. Insufficient account, it is said, was taken of his guilty plea, his remorse and the low risk of him reoffending. It is said that there were no aggravating features in the case; and that is right. There were no relevant previous convictions; and that is right also. It is also said that if the custody threshold was passed then the punishment and deterrent effect of a custodial sentence could have been met with a shorter sentence.
6. Counsel in the course of his submissions refers to the case of R v Stewart, which was decided in this court on 22_nd_ May 2002. The facts of that case were really very similar to the facts of the present case, in the sense that a weapon was in someone's possession, that it had not been used in any aggressive or violent way, and the court took the view that the proper sentence in that case was a sentence of six weeks' imprisonment.
7. We have read that case with care. We take the view that a similar sentence here would adequately reflect the guilt and culpability of this appellant.
8. When the matter came before the learned single judge, he took a similar view. He felt that it was arguable that the case did not pass the custody threshold, but, even if it did, a significantly shorter sentence could have been imposed.
9. We take the view that it did pass the custody threshold, but in our view a sentence of six weeks would have adequately reflected his guilt. For the sentence that was then passed of three months' imprisonment we substitute a sentence of six weeks' imprisonment, which, as we understand, would almost certainly result in his immediate release.