Smith, R. v

LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK: On 16 August 2006 in the Crown Court at Saint Albans before HHJ Catterson the appellant was convicted on an indictment containing eight counts and was sentenced as follows: on count 1 (possessing a prohibited weapon) to seven years' imprisonment; on counts 2, 3 and 4 (possession of a firearm without a certificate) to three years' imprisonment in each case, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the sentence imposed on count 1; and on counts 5 to 8 (possession of a firearm when prohibited) to three years' imprisonment in each case concurrent and concurrent to the sentence imposed on count 2. The overall effect of those sentences, therefore, was that the appellant was ordered to serve a period of ten years’ imprisonment.

He now appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.

The circumstances giving rise to these convictions were as follows. On 21 August 2004 the police searched the house of a woman with whom the appellant had had a relationship and also the surrounding area. On a piece of land near the back garden of the house they found hidden under some bushes a sawn-off double barrel shotgun wrapped in plastic. A further five guns were found in the garden shed; two were sawn-off double barrel shotguns, one was a single barrel sawn-off shotgun and two were unmodified double barrel shotguns. In the shed were also some 12-bore cartridges. In the appellant's Landrover, which was parked near the house, the police found a further 50 12-bore cartridges. All the cartridges were suitable for use in the guns which they had found. At the time these weapons were found the appellant was prohibited from possessing any firearm by reason of his previous convictions.

A sawn-off shotgun is a prohibited weapon and, as the judge observed when passing sentence, there could be no conceivable legitimate reason for the appellant to be in possession of one. The offences were aggravated by the fact that the weapon discovered hidden under a bush was not securely stored, having been left in a place where it might easily have been stumbled on by other people.

The grounds of appeal are that it was wrong in principle to impose consecutive sentences for different offences which formed part of a single course of conduct and that the sentence was manifestly excessive in its totality.

The maximum penalty for possessing a prohibited weapon is ten years' imprisonment. There were some aggravating features in this case. The first is that the appellant was in possession of not one but four sawn-off shotguns, all in working condition, with ammunition available on hand for use in them. He also had two additional shotguns which had not been modified. The appellant knew at the time that he was prohibited from possessing guns of any kind. He has a bad record of offending, but no previous convictions for firearms offences. There was one mitigating factor in this case, namely, that there was no evidence that any of these firearms had been used.

Although these were separate offences, in reality this appellant was convicted of possessing a substantial arsenal of weapons. In our view therefore the better course would have been to treat this as a single course of criminal conduct and to order that sentences imposed in respect of the individual offences be served concurrently. Nonetheless, the nature of this activity was such as to call for a lengthy sentence, albeit, in our view, somewhat shorter than that imposed by the judge.

We therefore propose to increase the sentence passed on count 1 to a term of eight years' imprisonment but to order that the sentences imposed on all the other counts be served concurrently with it. The effect of that will be to reduce the overall sentence from ten years' imprisonment to eight years' imprisonment.

We therefore quash the sentence imposed on count 1 of seven years' imprisonment and substitute one of eight years' imprisonment, but direct that the sentences imposed on all the other counts (each of which will remain unaltered) be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on count 1. To that extent this appeal is allowed.