Murphy, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 21 November 2023, in the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant pleaded guilty to four offences: possession of an explosive substance with intent to cause serious injury to property; possession of two imitation firearms in a public place; and possession of an article with a blade or point. The Appellant was sentenced on 22 August 2024 before Judge Flewitt KC to an extended sentence of 20 years for the explosive substance offence, and concurrent sentences on the other counts. The Appellant was acquitted of a further count related to an explosive substance. He now appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.

In November 2020, the Appellant, unlawfully at large after absconding from a previous extended sentence, was encountered by police near a soup kitchen called "Amazing Grace." He initially gave false details but was identified via fingerprint. Having prior convictions involving firearms, he admitted possession of a gun and an improvised explosive device (IED) in his rucksack. Upon search, police found the IED, two imitation firearms (a BB gun and a homemade shotgun), and a kitchen knife. The Appellant made a statement about intending to blow up a bank seen on television.

The area was evacuated, and an army explosives disposal officer rendered safe the devices. The IED was a viable device capable of causing serious injury or death and property damage. The improvised shotgun was potentially viable, capable of firing projectiles or exploding. The BB gun operated normally but was unloaded. The Appellant was arrested.

At sentencing, the Appellant was aged 62 with a criminal record including multiple firearm-related offences. He explained his motive as outrage over perceived nefarious activities by a bank, inspired by a documentary, intending to damage the bank’s property without intending harm to persons. The judge accepted the acquittal on the count alleging intent to endanger life but rejected the notion that there was no risk of injury. The sentencing judge applied guidelines for explosives offences, adjusted for the absence of terrorist motivation, and considered aggravating and mitigating factors including the Appellant’s guilty plea and delay in prosecution.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge correctly applied the starting point and adjustments under the Sentencing Council Guidelines for offences involving explosive substances.
2. Whether sufficient downward adjustment was made to reflect the absence of terrorist motivation.
3. Whether the sentencing judge adequately explained the adjustments made to the sentence at each stage.
4. Whether there was double counting in sentencing due to a prior imprisonment during the period the Appellant was unlawfully at large.
5. Whether the overall sentence properly accounted for aggravating and mitigating factors, including delay and guilty plea discounts.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge ignored the prescribed starting point of 16 years' imprisonment for the lead offence.
• Insufficient downward adjustment was made for the case not being related to terrorism.
• The judge failed to clarify how and to what extent the sentence was adjusted upwards and downwards at each stage.
• There was double counting of an aggravating factor related to a prior six-month imprisonment while unlawfully at large.
• The judge either excessively increased the starting point before reducing or failed to apply appropriate discounts for delay and guilty plea.

Respondent's Arguments

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed review of the sentencing judge’s approach. It confirmed that the judge correctly identified the lead offence and appropriately set the starting point at 16 years’ imprisonment in line with the Sentencing Council Guidelines for offences involving viable explosive devices. The judge properly considered that the risk of death was more serious than mere damage to property, justifying an upward adjustment. He also correctly applied a downward adjustment reflecting the absence of a terrorist connection, consistent with the precedent set in R v Muhammed.

The court emphasized that the degree of adjustment for non-terrorism must depend on the facts, including the presence or absence of ideological motivation, the nature of the risk posed, and the overall criminality. Here, the Appellant’s motivation was based on a documentary rather than an entrenched ideology, distinguishing it from typical terrorism offences. The judge was entitled to treat the upward and downward factors as cancelling each other, returning the sentence to the starting point.

The court found the judge’s explanation of the sentence adjustments sufficient, rejecting the argument that he was required to detail each stage explicitly. The consideration of aggravating factors—such as the Appellant’s unlawful status at the time of the offences and previous convictions—and mitigating factors—including delay and guilty plea—was proper and balanced. The judge’s application of a 25% reduction for the guilty plea was appropriate. The court also accepted that grounds relating to alleged double counting were not pursued and found no merit in the other grounds of appeal.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, affirming the appropriateness of the starting point and the adjustments made for the absence of terrorist motivation and other factors. The decision confirms that sentencing for offences involving explosive substances must carefully balance the risk posed, the offender’s motivation, and relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing guidelines and case law. The direct effect is that the Appellant’s extended sentence of 20 years remains in force.