Jack O’Shea [2019] EWCA Crim 1296

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a disguised firearm namely a handheld torch/stun gun. He accepted the Taser belonged to him saying that he had it for protective purposes because of ongoing disputes with people in the area where he lived. He was charged in December 2016 but due to the loss of the file by the CPS he did not plead guilty until March 2019 and was later sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

The offence attracts the minimum sentence provisions of the firearms legislation unless there are exceptional reasons to justify not doing so. The judge was persuaded in this case that there were. The weapon had been kept at the appellant’s home, there was no direct evidence to dispute his account of why he had it and there was no evidence it had ever been used to inflict or even threaten violence. Also noted were his previous convictions, relative youth and the fact he had never served a custodial sentence. The cumulative effect of the mitigation was that it would be unjust to impose the minimum sentence.

The grounds for appeal were that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been suspended, in support the cases of Zhekov and Watson were relied upon.

Held: it is not unusual for an offender to seek to justify, or explain, possession of a prohibited weapon by reference to threats of fear or violence. The attacks on the family in this case started 12 years before and he told probation that the feud had died down recently, there was no evidence of imminent or serious threat. His personal circumstances were not especially unusual either. There was nothing wrong in the judge’s approach to an offence of this gravity. The appeal was dismissed.