Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/94

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

3rd May 2002

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

William Charles Ewens

 

2 counts of:	Being in possession of firearm without a valid Firearms' Certificate, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000, (counts1, 4);
1 count of:	Being in possession of an accessory to a firearm without a valid Firearms' Certificate, contrary to Article 2(1)(a) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (count 2);
1 count of:	Shortening shotgun barrel to less than 24 inches, contrary to Article 47(1) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (count 3);
1 count of:	Being in possession of firearm with intent to endanger life, contrary to Article 38 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (count 5).

 

Age:     51

 

Plea:    Guilty

 

Details of Offence:

Defendant owned shotgun, previous licence in respect of which had lapsed.  He converted it into a sawn-off shotgun (counts 3 and 4).  Following an altercation with his employer, Mr Paul Talbot, the defendant secreted the weapon and some 10 rounds of ammunition about his person and took it to the site where his employer firm was working.  At various stages he showed the weapon and ammunition to various workmen and indicated that he intended to "knee cap" Talbot, adding such things as "I don't fuck around" and, "You'd better get plenty of towels".  The weapon was loaded throughout.  At no    time, however, did he threaten Talbot, or any other party, with it.  Defendant was slightly intoxicated (count 5).  He was arrested some time later.  Shortly after his arrest, Police obtained a warrant under the Firearms (Jersey) Law, 2000 to search the defendant's home address.  During the search the Police found a sound-moderator for a .22 rifle (count 2) and a .177 calibre air rifle (count 1).

 

Details of Mitigation:

The defendant was compliant during the arrest procedure and generally co-operative with the Police.  None of the threats that he had made to third parties regarding his former employer were directed to Mr Talbot himself.  He did not threaten anyone with the sawn-off shotgun nor did he point the gun at anyone.  The defendant had not fired the sawn-off shotgun.  He appeared to face the charges having been remanded on bail since 19 April, 2002.  Whilst not entirely of good character, prior to a motoring conviction in February, 2002, the defendant had not offended since 1984 and had no previous convictions for this type of offence.  At the time the current offences were committed, defendant was under a considerable degree of stress in his personal life and had just lost his job.

 

Previous Convictions:

A Magistrates' Court record, mainly for various motoring offences including a disqualification on 5^th February, 2002, for driving while under the influence of drink.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	6 months' imprisonment;
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment;
Count 3:	2½ years' imprisonment;
Count 4:	2 years' imprisonment;
Count 5:	3 years imprisonment, all concurrent.

 

Total:  3 years' imprisonment.

In addition, the Crown moved for orders under Article 48 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law, 2000, for the forfeiture of the .177 air rifle and sound moderator, and the forfeiture and disposal of the sawn-off shotgun.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court said that it must spell out that such behaviour cannot be tolerated and would normally attract a substantial custodial sentence.  Having said that, the Deputy Bailiff confirmed that he was willing to pass an individualised sentence in this case, having regard to the defendant's personal circumstances, which just took the case into the category of exceptional.  Defendant was sentenced to 240 hours' Community Service and put on Probation for 2 years during which time he must undertake the courses mentioned in the Psychiatric Report.  The Deputy Bailiff commented that had the Court not passed an individualised sentence in this case, it would have sent the defendant to prison for 2 years.  The Court ordered the forfeiture and disposal of the sawn-off shotgun and the forfeiture of the .177 calibre air rifle and the sound moderator for the.22 calibre rifle.

Total sentence: 240 hours' Community Service and 2 years' Probation.

 

A.J. Olsen, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M Guillaume for the defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Following the enactment of the Firearms (Jersey) Law, 2000 with its increased and more realistic penalties, and in common with the English Courts, we wish to make it clear that unauthorised possession of firearms is a serious offence.  This is particularly so in relation to possession of shortened shotguns, because they are weapons for which there is no legitimate use.

2.        We note that the relevant extracts from Thomas: Current Sentencing Practice, Part B3-3D, p21914/1-21917 to which we have been referred, show that sentences for simple possession of shortened shotguns without a certificate result in sentences, even on a guilty plea, of between 2½ and 4 years' imprisonment, save for one case R.v.Hennessy [1996] 2 Cr. App.R.(S.) 1, where a sentence of 21 months' was imposed.

3.        We see no reason to adopt a generally different approach in Jersey, and it follows, of course, that possession of such a firearm with intent to endanger life would normally attract a greater sentence.  But the circumstances of each offence can vary enormously, and we must consider the facts of this particular case and the circumstances of this particular offender.

4.        Aggravating factors of this particular offence include the fact that the defendant had been drinking thereby losing self-control, and that he deliberately took this weapon to his place of work and loaded it.  He disguised what he was doing from his daughter.

5.        In mitigation it can be said that the offence arose on the spur of the moment, in that he decided to take the gun in an instant as he went to go and collect his wages.  Most importantly, he never made any use of the gun.  He did not point it at anyone, or threaten anyone, or indeed bring it out at any stage other than to show it to one person who queried its existence.  His threats issued to approximately two people were that he would "knee-cap" Mr Talbot, whom he blamed for his dismissal.  Some of those to whom he spoke treated what he said as bravado.  Furthermore, when the time came for him to meet Mr Talbot, he did not take the gun with him; he left it in the van.  He did not threaten Mr Talbot and, as far as we are aware, they had a perfectly normal conversation.

6.        In all the circumstances, as offences of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life go, this must be at the very bottom of the scale.  We must also consider the defendant's personal circumstances.  He is a married man of 51, he supports his family, including 2 daughters and their children.  He has no previous convictions of any note and in particular has nothing in his past which would suggest a predisposition to violence.  He has a good work record, although recently he has been suffering from depression and prescribed medication.  It may be that the combination of medication and alcohol played its part on this occasion.  We have received a number of reports including psychiatric and psychological reports and they are unanimous in concluding that he is not a dangerous man and that there is a low likelihood of re-offending.

7.        In all the circumstances we have had to ask ourselves whether a prison sentence is to be imposed.  We have not found this easy.  Offences such as this must normally attract imprisonment in order to spell out clearly that this sort of behaviour cannot be tolerated, and that peoples' lives must not be put potentially at risk by irresponsible conduct of this nature.  Nevertheless, and not without considerable agonising, we have concluded that we can just treat this as a very exceptional case and proceed by way of individualised sentence.  Nevertheless, you must be punished.  The sentence of the Court is that you will undertake 240 hours Community Service, and we state that had we not imposed an individualised sentence, we would have imposed a prison sentence of 2 years.  We impose a Probation Order of 2 years so that you may undertake the course which is referred to in the Probation Report.  These sentences are to be concurrent on all charges.  We order forfeiture and disposal of the shotgun and the forfeiture of the other items.  You can consider yourself an extremely lucky man.

Authorities

Thomas: Current Sentencing Practice: Part B3-3D: p 21914/1-21917.

R.-v-Hennessy (1996) 2 Cr.App. R(S)1.

Ibid: Part B3-3: p21901-21908/2.

A.G.-v-Ware (13 February, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/37].