Crown loses appeal over former soldier’s ‘unduly lenient’ sentence for firearms offences

The Criminal Appeal Court refused an appeal against sentence by the Crown, who argued that the sentence imposed upon Andrew Steven, also known as Andrew Walton, “did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences”.

The court held that while the sentences were “lenient”, they were not unduly so.

The Lord Justice General, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Malcolm and Lord Turnbull, heard that on 7 October 2016, at the conclusion of the Crown case at the High Court in Glasgow, the respondent pled guilty to 92 charges over a 20-year period relating to the possession of firearms and ammunition as well as the reactivation and distribution of other prohibited weapons, some of which were to be used for serious organised crime, in contravention of the Firearms Act 1968 and the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.

On 3 November 2016, the trial judge imposed sentence and said that all the periods of imprisonment were to be served concurrently because the offending constituted a course of conduct, albeit repeated over a considerable period of time, meaning the total, in practical terms, was ten years.

The judge reported that the respondent was 53 at the time of the trial and had been a former soldier in the regular, and thereafter in the territorial, army.

Over a number of years he had acquired a series of decommissioned firearms from dealers in the UK and elsewhere and converted these back into useable firearms by manufacturing homemade ammunition which could be discharged with lethal force.

In mitigation, it was said that a criminal associate of the respondent’s adopted brother had contacted him with a view to the provision of firearms.

Over the years the respondent’s involvement had increased as others had asked him for weapons; the payments varying, but £100 being common for each firearm.

But there were no signs of any “lavish lifestyle” on the part of the respondent and his involvement had been detected as a result of the surveillance on others.

He also suffered from a neurological condition affecting his nerves, had serious liver and kidney problems and required a catheter. He was susceptible to infection and his conditions were life-threatening in the long-term.

There was some doubt as to whether he would survive a lengthy prison sentence and he was assessed by the criminal justice social work enquiry report as presenting a “low risk” of further offending.

He had also attempted suicide during the course of the trial and his partner had been suffering from cancer.

The trial judge took the view that the offences represented a very serious course of criminal conduct over a lengthy period of time and imposed a sentence close to the maximum in relation to each group of charges, but did not impose that maximum because the appellant was a first offender.

One of the charges carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but the judge limited the sentence to one of 10 years on account of the respondent’s “significant health issues”.

But the Crown appealed on the basis that the sentences imposed were “unduly lenient”.

The sentences, it was said, did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences, nor did they take “sufficient account of the scale of the criminal enterprise” or the period of time over which it operated.

It was submitted that the case was comparable to R v Stephenson (2016) and that the sentences “failed to satisfy the need for retribution and deterrence”.

However, the appeal judges refused the appeal after observing that the sentence did not fall “outside the range” of sentences which the trial judge could reasonably have considered appropriate.

Delivering the opinion of the court, the Lord Justice General said: “The court has had due regard to R v Stephenson and the fact that the offences here are almost all in respect of a statute which affects the United Kingdom. However, R v Stephenson was a much more sophisticated large scale commercial operation involving a number of persons.

“Although it is comparable in some respects, it cannot be regarded as encompassing the same scale of enterprise. The trial judge has observed that there were significant differences between the respondent’s case and that in R v Stephenson; not least the respondent’s age and health.”

The court noted that the trial judge had also “adequately explained” his comparative exercise in sentencing all the accused.

Lord Carloway added: “Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, whilst the court does regard the sentences as being lenient, it does not consider that they were unduly so. It will therefore refuse this Crown appeal.”