[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 >> Burton, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 1781 (12 July 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/1781.html Cite as: [2012] EWCA Crim 1781

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		12 July 2012

1. MR JUSTICE FIELD: This is an appeal against sentence with the leave of the single judge.
2. Having previously pleaded guilty, the appellant, Steven Burton, aged 48, was sentenced on 23 March 2012 at Woolwich Crown Court by His Honour Judge Shorrocks to four years' imprisonment for being in possession of a prohibited firearm contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968 and to nine months' concurrent for being in breach of a suspended sentence order under which he had been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months.
3. On 25 April 2011 the appellant attempted to take his own life by firing a loaded sawn-off single barrelled shotgun into his face. Ambulance personnel responded to a call and found the appellant severely injured in his flat. Present in the flat was a Mr Burgess, a friend of the appellant who had arrived after the suicide attempt. The appellant was taken to hospital and operated on for serious facial injuries. When the police arrived at the scene they found the sawn-off shotgun.
4. At a later stage the appellant was arrested. When interviewed he said that he had found the gun in the loft of his home and had hidden it under his bed. On the day in question he had been suffering from depression and had decided to kill himself. He therefore retrieved the shotgun and used it on himself.
5. The judge had the benefit of a psychiatric report prepared by Dr Peter Pierzchniak, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, which began by setting out the appellant's general state of health. It stated that the appellant had previously been hepatitis C positive and had suffered from tuberculosis. He was currently suffering from liver cirrhosis that had led to oesophageal varices, swollen veins at the base of his gullet which bleed chronically and are at risk of bleeding acutely with disastrous consequences. Pancreatic lesions had also been detected. The report further recorded that the appellant had previously been a heroin addict for 14 years and that he had an alcohol problem.
6. In 2010 he was seen by a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Getz, who reported that he had a dissocial personality disorder, evidenced by frequent transgressions of the law, quick discharge of anger and lack of remorse.
7. On the day he shot himself he had been feeling very low and helpless. In Dr Pierzchniak's opinion the appellant had suffered from a depressive disorder. He had been very unwell at the time of the shooting and during the time he was in possession of the firearm, and this had had a significant impact on his judgment.
8. The pre-sentence report recorded that the appellant remained separated from his partner with whom he had lived for some 29 years and by whom he had had two sons, one of whom is aged 11 and has ADHD and Asperger's problems.
9. The appellant had a long history of previous offending, dating back to 1981, with convictions for theft, burglary, possession of offensive weapons (knives) and drug related matters. However, he had not served a custodial sentence since 1990. In October 2010 he had been given the suspended sentence of 12 months, suspended for 18 months, with 12 months' supervision, plus alcohol requirements and a curfew requirement for a wounding offence.
10. The author of the pre-sentence report recommended a suspended sentence of 12 months' supervision.
11. The police were informed by Mr Burgess, the man who was in the flat after the suicide attempt, that the appellant had attempted to take his life with the firearm in the previous October, 2010. This is a matter not disputed by the appellant.
12. We have been provided with prison reports which show that the appellant's conduct in custody has been good and co-operative and that he is seeking enhanced status.
13. The index offence carries a minimum sentence of five years unless there are exceptional circumstances. The judge found that there were no exceptional circumstances in relation to the offence, but there were in relation to the appellant personally by reason of his psychiatric problems and poor state of health generally. The judge said that ordinarily the appropriate sentence would have been six years but in the light of these exceptional circumstances he would pass a sentence of four years and make the sentence of nine months for breach of the suspended sentence a concurrent sentence.
14. On behalf of the appellant Miss Davies has submitted that the mitigation available to the appellant, including his unsuccessful suicide attempt, his history of depression, his very poor state of general health, his guilty plea and the admissions that he made in interview, ought to have resulted in a lower sentence than one of four years. She argues that this was not a case where a deterrent sentence is justified. She contends that it would be hard for the appellant to receive the necessary medical attention he requires whilst he is in custody.
15. Miss Davies's submissions were attractively presented. We have given them careful consideration, but we have concluded that we should not accede to them. By legislating for a minimum sentence of five years for mere possession of a firearm, unless there are exceptional circumstances, Parliament was addressing the very real problem of gun crime in this country. Here the firearm was of a sort often used by criminals; a sawn-off single barrelled shotgun. It was loaded and it had been in the appellant's possession since at least October 2010 when he made his first attempt to take his own life. He must have known it was illegal to possess the firearm. He was under an immediate duty to hand it into the police as soon as he discovered it, but he did not.
16. In these circumstances, notwithstanding the matters that have been urged upon us by Miss Davies, we are unable to conclude that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. It follows that this appeal must be and is dismissed.