header-logo header-logo

Sentencing weapons importers

24 November 2021
Issue: 7958 / Categories: Legal News , In Court , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Gun smugglers are to be targeted by a specific sentencing guideline, effective from 1 January 2022

The Sentencing Council developed the guideline, for adult offenders convicted of importing prohibited or restricted firearms in England and Wales, following requests from the National Crime Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service, and feedback from judges. Such offences are not frequently prosecuted―about 40 offenders were sentenced in 2020―but can be serious and complex. The Sentencing Council said the guideline would help courts take a consistent approach to sentencing offences they do not routinely see.

The sentences imposed, ranging from a fine to 28 years in prison, will be dependent on various factors, including type of firearm, role of the offender and scale and nature of the importation. The most serious cases involving lethal weapons will be sentenced in the Crown court. Less serious cases, typically involving importation of a stun gun with no criminal intent, may be sentenced in magistrates’ courts.

Sentencing Council member Mrs Justice Maura McGowan said: ‘Firearms offences are treated seriously; the more firearms there are in circulation, the greater the risk of death or serious injury.

‘The new guideline will ensure courts take a consistent approach to sentencing often complex firearms importation offences and will make the sentencing process more transparent and easier to understand for victims, witnesses, defendants and the public.’

The guideline covers importation of firearms and ammunition under two offences: improper importation of goods and fraudulent evasion of prohibition/restriction, and will be added to a suite of eight existing guidelines for other firearms offences that came into force on 1 January 2021.

Respondents to the Sentencing Council’s consultation on the proposed guideline, Firearms importation guideline, which closed in September, asked for more clarity on dealing with weapons that have been adapted or modified, and on interpreting the term ‘organised criminal group’ when categorising harm. 

Issue: 7958 / Categories: Legal News , In Court , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll