Golding, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 6th May 2022, two workmen were fixing fencing between two neighbouring properties, including the Applicant's garden. One workman discovered a black pistol under a wheelie bin in the Applicant's garden, which was real and had a bullet in the chamber. The Applicant retrieved the gun, attempted to dissuade the workmen from reporting it, offered to replace it with a toy replica, and expressed concern about the impact of imprisonment on his children. The workmen reported the incident to the police after leaving the scene.

The police subsequently arrested the Applicant at his residence and seized his vehicle, discovering multiple prohibited firearms and ammunition concealed within. The Applicant had a previous firearms conviction and answered "No comment" during police interview.

At the Crown Court, the Applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a prohibited firearm, one count of possessing a firearm without a certificate, and one count of possessing ammunition without a certificate. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 7½ years' imprisonment for the first two counts, 6 months' imprisonment for the ammunition count, and a consecutive term of 18 months for the firearm without certificate count, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 9 years.

The Applicant now seeks an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge. The court considers the arguability of the proposed appeal before deciding on the extension.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the Applicant's culpability as category A rather than category B for counts 1 to 3.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the harm as category 2 rather than category 3 for counts 1 to 3.
3. Whether the sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2 were manifestly excessive.
4. Whether it was wrong in principle to order the 18-month sentence on count 3 to run consecutively to the other sentences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge incorrectly placed the culpability in category A, lacking sufficient evidence that the Applicant intended the firearms for criminal use or was reckless as to such use.
• The judge incorrectly assessed harm as category 2, arguing there was minimal or no risk of alarm, distress, harm, or death.
• The sentences on counts 1 and 2 were manifestly excessive, exceeding the guideline range and failing to properly weigh mitigating factors such as the Applicant being the primary carer for his mother.
• The consecutive sentence on count 3 was improper because the offences arose from the same incident or facts, and maximum sentences had already been imposed on counts 1 and 2.

Respondent's Arguments (Single Judge's Reasoning)

• The judge was entitled to conclude that the weapons were intended for criminal use or that the Applicant was reckless, given the type and number of weapons, compatible ammunition, and the Applicant's antecedent history.
• The harm was properly categorised as category 2 due to the alarm and distress caused to the public and the Applicant’s threatening behaviour towards the workmen.
• The sentence was within the appropriate range considering the aggravating factors, including previous convictions and gross escalation in offending.
• The total sentence of 9 years, structured with concurrent and consecutive terms, was not manifestly excessive and complied with the totality principle.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the sentencing judge’s findings and the single judge’s refusal of leave to appeal. It affirmed the judge’s categorisation of culpability as category A, reasoning that the evidence supported an inference that the Applicant intended the firearms for criminal use or was reckless as to such use. The court upheld the harm classification as category 2, noting the genuine alarm and distress caused to the workmen and neighbour, exacerbated by the Applicant’s threatening conduct.

The court also considered the risk posed by leaving firearms and ammunition concealed in the Applicant’s garden and vehicle in public spaces. It rejected the argument that multiple offences arising from possession of several prohibited firearms discovered simultaneously should be treated as a single incident for sentencing purposes, emphasizing that each offence is distinct.

Overall, the court found the aggregate sentence to be just, proportionate, and consistent with sentencing principles, including the totality principle. It noted that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that a longer sentence could have been justified.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

This decision results in the Applicant’s original sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment remaining in place. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling confirms the appropriateness of the sentencing judge’s application of culpability and harm categories, as well as the totality principle in cases involving multiple firearm offences.