Pavlou, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 24 June 2022, the Appellant, aged 29, was convicted at the Crown Court in The City for transferring a prohibited weapon and transferring ammunition, contrary to sections 5(2A)(b) and 3(2) of the Firearms Act 1968. Subsequently, on 28 February 2023, the Appellant pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of cannabis under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and to possessing criminal property under section 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

On 8 June 2023, the Appellant was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment for transferring a prohibited weapon, 4 years' imprisonment concurrently for transferring ammunition, 15 months' imprisonment consecutively for drug supply, and 9 months' imprisonment concurrently for possessing criminal property, resulting in a total effective sentence of 15 years and 3 months' imprisonment.

Co-accused Defendant Phillips received a sentence of 10 and a half years' imprisonment for transferring a weapon, concurrent 3 and a half years for transferring ammunition, and a consecutive 4 years for a separate drug offence.

The Appellant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the Single Judge, and leave was granted.

The facts revealed that on 15 May 2021, the Appellant, Defendant Phillips, and a third individual met in The City, where the Appellant provided Phillips with a loaded, fully functioning pistol. The Appellant and Phillips had communicated by telephone the day before and on the day of the transfer. The transfer occurred under police surveillance, with Phillips observed carrying a bag and leaving the Appellant's mother's address shortly after the Appellant arrived there. Phillips was later stopped by police, who found a converted revolver capable of firing live ammunition and a knife. The Appellant's DNA was found on the firearm.

The Appellant was arrested the same evening. An associate possessed £4,490 in cash believed to be proceeds from the sale of the firearm, while the Appellant had £852 in cash. The Appellant was released under investigation and re-arrested on 13 July 2021, where a mobile phone was seized containing images and voice notes evidencing his intent to sell firearms using slang terminology.

At trial, the Appellant admitted involvement in cannabis supply, stating in a written plea that he sold cannabis over approximately 3 to 6 months, purchasing about 3 kilograms and making a profit of £3,600. The Appellant had previous convictions unrelated to drugs or firearms, including a 5-year sentence in 2015 for conspiracy to burgle. No pre-sentence report was prepared.

At sentencing, the judge found the Appellant engaged in sourcing firearms since December 2020, seeking multiple firearms for resale. The judge classified the offence as category 2B under the sentencing guidelines for firearms, indicating medium culpability and medium-scale enterprise harm, with aggravating factors including prior serious criminality and ammunition supply. The judge also assessed the drug offence as falling between leading and significant roles with category 3 harm, resulting in a starting point of 3 and a half years, reduced for guilty plea and totality.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating the Appellant as involved in a wider conspiracy to trade firearms beyond the single offence of transferring one loaded firearm.
2. Whether the sentencing judge properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the length of the sentences for the firearms and drug offences.
3. Whether the starting points and final sentences for the firearms and drug offences were manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge improperly sentenced the Appellant for a broad conspiracy to trade firearms of which he was not convicted.
• The judge failed to properly balance aggravating and mitigating factors.
• The 14-year sentence for transferring one loaded firearm was manifestly excessive.
• The starting point for the drug offence sentence was too high, as the Appellant was a street dealer with no more than a significant role.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the necessity of considering the nature of the enterprise in assessing harm categorisation for the firearms offences. The judge was entitled to rely on messages from December 2020 demonstrating the Appellant’s efforts to acquire multiple firearms for resale. This justified categorising the offence as category 2 harm with significant culpability. However, the court found no evidence supporting involvement in the transfer of more than one firearm, nor was the Appellant charged with such. Therefore, while the judge was correct to apply the category B2 starting point of 10 years, the increased starting point of 12 years was not justified.

The aggravating factors of a previous record and supplying ammunition justified a two-year increase, resulting in a 12-year sentence for the firearm transfer. Mitigation was limited.

Regarding the drug offences, the court found the 3 and a half years' starting point too high. The Appellant operated independently with a significant role but not a leading one. The appropriate starting point was closer to 1 year, with some increase for prior record and offence duration. After a 25% reduction for a guilty plea and allowance for totality, the court concluded that a 6-month consecutive sentence was appropriate rather than 15 months.

Holding and Implications

The court QUASHED the original 14-year sentence for transferring a prohibited weapon and substituted a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment.

The court also QUASHED the consecutive 15-month sentence for drug offences and substituted a consecutive sentence of 6 months' imprisonment.

All other sentences remain concurrent, resulting in a total effective sentence of 12 and a half years' imprisonment instead of 15 years and 3 months.

The appeal was successful to this extent. No new legal precedent was established; the decision directly affected the Appellant's sentence by reducing it to reflect a more accurate application of sentencing guidelines and the evidence presented.