REGINA v Dawson

Factual and Procedural Background

On 26th April 2017, in the Crown Court at Blackfriars, the Appellant pleaded guilty to two offences under the Firearms Act 1968: possession of a prohibited firearm (a pistol) contrary to section 5(1)(aba), and possession of ammunition without a firearm certificate contrary to section 1(1)(b). The first offence attracted a mandatory minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment under section 51A of the Act, unless exceptional circumstances justified a lesser sentence. The trial judge found no exceptional circumstances and imposed the minimum five-year term, with a concurrent two-year sentence for the ammunition offence.

The Appellant appealed against sentence, challenging the judge’s finding that there were no exceptional circumstances. The offences arose from a police warrant execution at the Appellant’s home, where police found the Appellant alone in a bedroom, nervous and looking out a window. Two men escaped through a window and were unidentified; another man remained in the flat. A loaded .32 calibre pistol was found outside on the grass, beneath a children's play area, and additional cartridges of a different calibre were found in a bedroom drawer.

The Appellant stated in a prepared police interview that the two men who escaped had given him the gun moments before, instructing him to dispose of it. He claimed to be fearful of these men, who had used his flat for drug dealing and had previously assaulted him. The prosecution did not dispute the factual basis of the plea, but the judge was not fully informed of these admissions. The Appellant’s counsel did not argue for exceptional circumstances at sentencing, accepting the inevitability of the minimum term. The Appellant was described as of good character, with minimal prior convictions and steady employment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge was correct in finding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a sentence below the mandatory minimum term under section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968.
2. Whether the Appellant’s circumstances, including his brief possession of the firearm, his good character, and being under threat from associates, amounted to exceptional circumstances under the law.
3. Whether the sentencing procedure complied with the proper approach to establishing exceptional circumstances, including the need for a structured evidential process.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant was a man of effective good character with only one minor previous conviction.
• He possessed the firearm only fleetingly, for a matter of seconds, before disposing of it.
• The firearm was initially incapable of firing due to a broken firing pin.
• He did not know the gun was loaded with ammunition.
• The Appellant had been threatened and was fearful of the men who gave him the gun, making him a victim of their actions.
• Relying on the precedent in R v Rehman and Wood, the Appellant contended that imposing the minimum sentence would be arbitrary and disproportionate given the totality of circumstances.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Crown disputed that the facts accepted by the judge regarding the Appellant’s fleeting possession and victim status were agreed or supported by evidence, as the Appellant did not give evidence.
• The Appellant had allowed others to use his home for criminal activity over a period of time.
• There was no evidence supporting the Appellant’s claim of having been shot previously.
• The firearm was disposed of only as police forced entry, indicating an attempt to obstruct justice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by noting procedural deficiencies, including the absence of a clear request or indication to the sentencing judge to consider exceptional circumstances and the lack of a proper evidential basis or hearing as required by R v Rogers. Despite these procedural shortcomings, the court proceeded on the factual findings made by the judge: that the Appellant possessed the firearm only fleetingly and was a victim of his social associates, not involved in a criminal association on the day of the offence.

The court examined the nature of the weapon (a loaded, potentially lethal pistol), the brief possession and immediate disposal of the firearm, the Appellant’s intention to prevent police recovery of the gun, and his good character. The court acknowledged the Appellant’s fear and threats but emphasized that such pressure alone does not amount to exceptional circumstances, consistent with established precedent.

The court also considered the broader context: the Appellant’s admission that he had allowed his flat to be used as a base for drug dealing by others over an extended period, which was unknown to the sentencing judge. The Appellant’s act of throwing the gun out of a window onto a children’s play area was viewed as reckless and obstructive, increasing the risk of harm.

Overall, the court found that the cumulative circumstances did not meet the high threshold of exceptional circumstances required to avoid the mandatory minimum sentence. The imposition of the five-year minimum term was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against sentence.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s five-year minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm remains in force. The decision reinforces the strict application of mandatory minimum sentences under section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968 and underscores the high threshold for exceptional circumstances. No new precedent was established; rather, the ruling affirms existing principles that pressure, fear, and fleeting possession generally do not suffice to avoid mandatory sentencing provisions.