Libert, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 February 2023, police executed search warrants at the Appellant's home and a nearby storage unit, leading to the Appellant's arrest. At the home, officers found cash, drugs including cannabis and amphetamines, drug paraphernalia, and electronic devices. The storage unit contained furniture, tools, two safes with a large sum of cash (£332,500), gold jewellery, SIM cards, correspondence, and firearms including a self-loading pistol, a sawn-off shotgun, and a blank firing pistol, along with ammunition. The sawn-off shotgun was operable after cleaning.

On 10 May 2023, the Appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced by HHJ Dean at Snaresbrook Crown Court to a total of 9 years’ imprisonment. The sentence comprised 6 years for firearms offences and 3 years for drugs offences and concealing criminal property, with the drugs sentences concurrent inter se but consecutive to the firearms sentence. The Appellant was granted leave to appeal against the sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point of 8 years for the self-loading pistol offence was manifestly excessive given the firearm was unloaded, antique, and locked away.
2. Whether the starting point of 8 years for the sawn-off shotgun offence was manifestly excessive given the firearm was inoperable in its found state and locked away.
3. Whether the judge erred in failing to distinguish between operable and inoperable firearms in sentencing.
4. Whether the judge was wrong to find the Appellant had a leading role in the drugs offences based solely on cash and potential for profit.
5. Whether the sentence for the concealment offence was manifestly excessive given the absence of sophisticated features.
6. Whether the judge failed to make an appropriate adjustment for totality in sentencing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point of 8 years for the self-loading pistol was too high because the firearm was antique, unloaded, and securely locked away.
• The starting point of 8 years for the sawn-off shotgun was too high because it was inoperable as found and locked away.
• The judge erred in not distinguishing between operable and inoperable firearms, as the sawn-off shotgun required repair beyond cleaning.
• The judge wrongly attributed a leading role in the drugs offences to the Appellant based on cash and profit potential, which are normal in drug involvement and should not aggravate.
• The 4-year notional sentence for the concealment offence was excessive given the basic nature of the offending without sophistication.
• The judge failed to properly apply the principle of totality when sentencing, referencing the Court’s approach in R v Baptiste [2007] EWCA Crim 2772.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the Sentencing Council guidelines on Firearms, Drugs, Money Laundering, and Totality. Regarding firearms, the Court found both the self-loading pistol and the sawn-off shotgun were operable firearms capable of serious harm, rejecting the submission that the shotgun was not working. Both were classified as type 1 firearms with high culpability and category 3 harm, justifying a starting point of 6 years each within a 5 to 7-year range. The presence of multiple weapons and ammunition aggravated the offences. The Court was not persuaded that an 8-year notional sentence before plea credit was excessive and dismissed the first three grounds of appeal.

For the drugs offences, the Court accepted the judge’s inference of a leading role based on the quantity of drugs, paraphernalia, and significant cash holdings. The starting point for Class B drugs with a leading role was 4 years, within a 2½ to 5-year range. The Court rejected the argument that cash holdings should not aggravate the role. For the concealment offence, the Court explained the Crown’s rationale for a 5-year starting point based on medium culpability and harm adjusted upwards due to the link to drug dealing. The judge’s reduction to a 4-year notional sentence after trial was within reasonable bounds, leading to rejection of the fifth ground.

On the totality ground, the Court noted that the sentencing judge had taken totality into account by reducing sentences and ordering concurrency where appropriate. The Court found no error in this approach and refused the sixth ground.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the appeal, affirming the total sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment as appropriate to reflect the seriousness and totality of the offences. The decision has the direct effect of upholding the original sentence without modification. No new precedent was established, and the ruling confirms the application of sentencing guidelines and totality principles in complex multi-offence cases involving firearms and drugs.