[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 >> Gumble, R v [2018] EWCA Crim 1501 (3 May 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/1501.html Cite as: [2018] EWCA Crim 1501

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		Thursday, 3 May 2018

This transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

If this transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.

1. MR JUSTICE EDIS: Arry Gumble is now 24 years old. This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.
2. In the Croydon Crown Court the applicant pleaded guilty, on the day of trial, to counts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on an indictment. These were two offences of possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply (counts 4 and 5), two of possession of Class B drugs with intent to supply (counts 6 and 7) and one offence of possession of criminal property, namely money (count 8).
3. Following a trial by jury, he was convicted on counts 2 and 3 of the same indictment which alleged possession of a firearm and ammunition respectively with intent to endanger life in each case. He also fell to be sentenced on count 1 which alleged the same offence. He had pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm without a licence, contrary to section 1 of the Firearms Act but denied an intent to endanger life and had been acquitted by the jury of that offence in relation to that firearm. He therefore fell to be sentenced only for the possession offence in relation to count 1.
4. On 10 March 2017 a total sentence of 13 years and 6 months was imposed. This was substantially comprised of a sentence of 9 years' imprisonment on count 2, possession of a revolver with intent and four-and-a-half years consecutively on count 4. Concurrent sentences were imposed in respect of counts 5, 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8. It is unnecessary to identify the terms of those sentences except in the case of count 1, in respect of which a sentence of 7 years was passed. The total term was 13 years and 6 months as we have said.
5. It is necessary to identify the sentence in relation to count 1 in particular because the maximum sentence in relation to that offence was 5 years. He was convicted only of the offence of possession of a firearm without a certificate having pleaded guilty to it. Under schedule 6 to the 1968 Act the maximum term provided is 5 years' imprisonment because the firearm did not fall within section 4 of the Act. Consequently the sentence of 7 years' imprisonment imposed in respect of count 1 is unlawful.
6. We therefore grant leave for the limited purpose of varying that sentence so as to render it lawful and we allow the appeal to the limited extent that the sentence on count 1 is quashed and we substitute for it a sentence of four-and-a-half years concurrently with the other sentences. That allows in that case the same 10% discount which the judge allowed for the pleas of guilty which were entered on the first day of the trial in respect of other offences. We also, in respect of that appeal, for which we have granted leave, grant an extension of time for it to be brought.
7. In respect of the other grounds of appeal, we first have to consider whether an extension of time should be granted in respect of them. This is made on the basis that the solicitors who conducted the case at trial and counsel who represented the applicant at trial were subsequently asked to give advice on appeal and advised that no appeal would have any merit. The applicant therefore recently instructed new solicitors on a pro bono basis and his family were involved in an exercise designed to raise money in order to instruct counsel to review the position. The combined effect of all that is that an extension of time is required of 189 days if this application is to be pursued.
8. We shall return to that later. The facts are set out in the Criminal Appeal Office summary which the applicant, of course, has and it is not necessary to set them out in any detail.
9. The quantity of drugs is described by Mr Rush in his capable and succinct submissions to us today as being relatively modest. In fact, the potential street value of drugs which was found in the properties to which the applicant had access and was in control of, at least to some extent, had a potential street value of £47,710 and the money which was the subject of count 8 was £12,535. To that extent the quantities may have been relatively modest compared with some operations but they were nevertheless very significant quantities of contraband.
10. Two revolvers were also recovered, one hidden in the attic of each property. One was loaded and effective, the other was unloaded but some ammunition was found for it albeit concealed in the property in which it was not hidden. There was also drug paraphernalia indicating that this applicant was involved in selling a wide variety of unlawful drugs. He was not simply street dealing because the paraphernalia showed that the drugs were adulterated by him and his mobile phone also confirmed that conclusion.
11. He has previous convictions but he has not previously been sent to prison and has no previous conviction for either any drug supplying offence or any firearm offence.
12. The judge, in conspicuously careful sentencing remarks, addressed himself to all the appropriate authorities and sources of guidance, first in respect of the firearm offences and then, having done that, in respect of the drugs offences. The judge considered the relevant guideline.
13. The grounds of appeal in respect of the sentence boil down to the contention that thirteen-and-a-half years simply is too long for this offending. The single judge considered that argument and identified, in substantial written reasons, why it is without merit. It is unnecessary, in our judgment, for us to set out the entirety of that reasoning, but the single judge first considered that there was no good reason for extending time in order to permit these grounds to be argued. In our judgment, he was right to do so. The reason why this application is out of time is because of negative and correct advice that was given by the trial lawyers.
14. The single judge went on to consider whether there was merit in the appeal notwithstanding his decision on the extension of time and concluded that there was not. He identified the judge's thought process and set it out and said that it was entirely in accordance with the appropriate guidance and in respect of firearms authorities. He said this:

i. "Whilst the overall sentence was long, these were extremely serious offences fully meriting a long sentence and my judgment it is not arguable that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive."

15. We agree with that and it is unnecessary to add anything to it. For that reason, this application, so far as it relates to the grounds of appeal for which leave has not been granted and no extension has been granted, is refused.

Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.

16. Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY

Tel No: 020 7404 1400

Email: [email protected]