[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Bent, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1847 (26 August 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/1847.html Cite as: [2009] EWCA Crim 1847

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		26 August 2009

1. MR JUSTICE TEARE: This is an appeal against sentence brought with the leave of the single judge.
2. On 27 May 2009 at the Crown Court at Isleworth the appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and to possession of cannabis. On 26 June of this year he was sentenced to 12 months' detention in a young offender institution for the firearm offence and one month detention concurrent for the drugs offence.
3. The facts of the firearm offence against which the appeal is brought are these. At about 4.00 p.m. on 10 October 2008 the complainant, Mr Kasiel, was driving along a road in west London when he came across the appellant who was driving very slowly. Mr Kasiel overtook him. As did he so he saw the appellant shouting and pointing at him. Mr Kasiel made an obscene gesture. He then continued on his way. He could see the appellant behind him. The appellant then raised a black handgun to the windscreen causing Mr Kasiel to fear for his safety. He sped up but the appellant did as well. Mr Kasiel called the police on his mobile phone after noting down the registration number of the appellant's car. Armed police units went to the area and stopped the appellant. The car was searched and the officers found an air pistol and a small amount of cannabis underneath the driver's seat. The appellant was arrested. When interviewed he said it was not a real gun and that the cannabis was for his own use. The appellant pleaded guilty on the basis that he had not pointed the gun at Mr Kasiel but merely showed it to him to put him in fear. The basis of plea was accepted.
4. From that basis of plea it is also to be noted that the handgun was an air pistol which was not loaded. The appellant was transporting it for his brother to his father's address. After the obscene gesture the appellant showed the gun for a matter of seconds. The appellant did not thereafter follow the victim. It is also to be noted that the air pistol is not a prohibited weapon. It can be lawfully possessed without a licence.
5. The appellant is 20 years old and is of good character. Prior to this incident he had been employed for over two years in security at Twickenham Stadium. He was regarded as hard working, diligent and keen to progress. We are told that he has also conducted himself well in the two months in which he has been in custody since sentencing.
6. This offence was therefore one which occurred whilst the appellant was lawfully carrying the firearm in his car for his brother to his father's address. In the context of an exchange of visual insults between drivers fear was intentionally, though briefly, caused by the showing of the firearm.
7. The sentencing judge considered that only an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate. This has been challenged on appeal but we are not persuaded that such a sentence as ordered by the judge was wrong in principle. Possession of a firearm, coupled with an intent to cause fear, in this case in the context of a public setting, is a serious offence which merits custody.
8. However, we are persuaded that the sentence of 12 months was too long. We have had regard to the context in which the offence occurred, its brevity and the fact that it was not persisted in. We have also had regard to the good character of the appellant and to the manner in which he has conducted himself whilst in custody. We consider that a sentence of four months' detention would be appropriate for this foolish, but nevertheless serious, offence. Such a sentence will result in his immediate release from custody. To that extent the appeal is allowed.