Man who bought firearms on holiday fails in appeal against five-year sentence

A man who was jailed for the statutory minimum term of five years after being caught in possession of firearms at a Scottish airport has had an appeal against his sentence rejected.

The Criminal Appeal Court refused the appeal by Niall Dinsmore, who claimed that the sentencing judge erred in holding that there were no “exceptional circumstances” which in terms of the statutory provisions would justify the court in not imposing the minimum custodial term.

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, sitting with Lord Turnbull, heard that the appellant and his girlfriend arrived by plane at Edinburgh International Airport on 31 August 2015 where they were stopped by a border force officer.

In response to questions the appellant accepted that he had a taser and baton and before his baggage was searched he admitted to having five tasers and five batons.

When interviewed under caution he admitted buying five stun-guns and five extendable batons at a supermarket in Bulgaria while he was holiday.

His intention was to keep one of the stun-guns and give the remaining tasers and batons to family and friends as “presents”.

The appellant stated that he thought the stun-guns may be classed as dangerous but said he thought he would just get a “slap on the wrist” if caught with them.

He accepted he might be doing wrong by importing the weapons but did not appreciate how serious an offence he was committing, and attributed his conduct to “stupidity”.

Having been arrested and charged, at a preliminary hearing in September 2016 he pled guilty to three charges, including possession of five stun guns disguised as torches, contrary to section 5(1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968.

He also pled guilty to being in possession of the stun-guns without a firearms certificate and carrying offensive weapons “without reasonable excuse or lawful authority”.

At an adjourned diet for sentence the solicitor advocate for the appellant made submissions that there were exceptional circumstances which would justify the court in not imposing the minimum custodial term.

In summary the submission was to this effect that the appellant had “fully cooperated” with the police and pled guilty; he had the stun-guns in his possession for only a short time and did not understand that the items were firearms; they were “non-lethal” and there was a “lack of criminal intent” vis-à-vis their use.

It was also submitted that he was of “good character”, in employment with a good work history; he had recently discovered he was the father of a child and was attempting to establish a relationship with her; and he had been assessed as “suitable for an alternative to custody”.

But the sentencing judge was not persuaded and he sentenced the appellant to five years imprisonment.

On appeal it was argued that when all the circumstances relative to the offence or the offender were taken into account, the judge erred in concluding that there were no exceptional circumstances and that the sentence imposed was “excessive”.

Counsel did not submit that the judge failed to take into account some important fact or to properly apply some legal principle, but claimed it would be “difficult to find a better example of exceptional circumstances”.

However, the appeal judges ruled that the sentencing judge was “correct in his conclusion and reasoning”.

Delivering the opinion of the court, the Lord Justice Clerk said: “In enacting section 51A of the Firearms Act and in classifying disguised stun-guns as firearms, Parliament plainly intended to protect the public against the obvious dangers arising from unlawful possession of disguised stun-guns. Parliament did this by providing a mandatory sentencing regime which (in the absence of exceptional circumstances) gives greater emphasis to considerations of retribution and deterrence (both general and individual) than the personal circumstances of the individual offender.

“In our opinion, the circumstances of the offence in this case are very serious and plainly fell within the type of offending behaviour which Parliament intended to prevent. The appellant brought into an airport in Scotland multiple disguised stun-guns along with multiple batons which were obviously offensive weapons…All the weapons were to the knowledge of the appellant in working order and had with them the means of causing harm.

“We accept that the appellant may not have realised that the stun-guns were categorised as firearms and that there was potentially a minimum sentence of five years imprisonment for possession, but we consider that he knew that they were illegal and dangerous.”

The judges also noted that his intentions were to give most of the stun-guns away to others, which put them “out of his control”.

Lady Dorrian added: “We consider that the type of offending to which the appellant pled guilty was deliberate offending with the potential to cause serious public harm of the type which Parliament intended to prevent by this sentencing regime. Had the appellant not prayed in aid substantial mitigating features, a sentence in excess of the minimum sentence might well have been justified in all the circumstances of this case.”