R v Peter Ralphs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Crim 2555 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2009/03572/A7 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 03 December 2009 |
[2009] EWCA Crim 2555
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LIVERPOOL
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOULTON
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Mrs Justice Rafferty
and
Mr Justice Henriques
Case No: 2009/03572/A7
Attorney General Reference under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Mr D. Atkinson for the Attorney General
Mr J Gibson for the Offender
Hearing dates : 5 th November 2009
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales:
This is a Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by Her Majesty's Attorney General of a sentence imposed on Peter Ralphs (the offender) by His Honour Judge Boulton sitting in the Crown Court at Liverpool on 16 June 2009.
The offender is 38 years old. He was born in June 1971. Although he has previous convictions, in the present context they are either relatively insignificant or stale. They do not aggravate the seriousness of the offences now under consideration.
Following a not guilty plea at the plea and case management hearing on 17 February 2009, the case was re-listed at the request of the offender, and on 3 March 2009 the offender pleaded guilty as follows:
(i) Count 1 – Possession of a prohibited weapon, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968, namely a 9mm Browning calibre Ingram machine gun;
(ii) Count 2 – Possession of a prohibited weapon, contrary to the same subsection, namely a 7.65mm calibre Skorpion machine pistol;
(iii) Count 3 – Possession of expanding ammunition, contrary to section 5(1A)(f) of the 1968 Act, namely a twenty-nine 9mm Browning calibre hollow point cartridges, designed or adapted to expand on impact.
(iv) Count 4 – Possession of expanding ammunition, contrary to the same subsection, namely forty-four 9mm Luger jacketed hollow point cartridges;
(v) Count 5 – Possessing an accessory to a firearm, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the 1968 Act, namely a sound moderator;
(vi) Count 6 – Possessing ammunition without a Firearm Certificate, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the 1968 Act, namely forty 9mm Browning full metal jacket cartridges;
(vii) Count 7 – Possession ammunition without a Firearm Certificate, contrary to the same subsection, namely fifty-seven 9mm Luger full metal jacket cartridges;
(viii) Count 8 – Possession ammunition without a Firearm Certificate, contrary to the same subsection, namely fifteen 32" Automatic calibre full metal jacket cartridges;
(ix) Count 9 – Possession ammunition without a Firearm Certificate, contrary to the same subsection, namely twenty-five 9mm Luger calibre full metal jacket cartridges with NATO compatibility.
On 16 June 2009 the offender was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment on counts 1 and 2, the sentences to run concurrently, and to 3 years' imprisonment on each of counts 3–9, all the sentences to run concurrently with each other and with the sentences on counts 1 and 2. Accordingly the total sentence was 6 years' imprisonment. Appropriate credit was given for time spent on remand prior to sentence.
The facts are accurately set out in the Reference itself.
The police executed a search warrant at the offender's address 11 Parbrook Road, at 8am on 27 th November 2008. The weaponry which formed the basis for the counts in the indictment were all found in a tool box in the cupboard under the stairs.
Count 1 related to a 9mm Browning calibre Ingram machine pistol. This weapon had no magazine fitted, but the selector was set for the fully automatic mode which would have permitted the successive discharge of two or more missiles without repeated pressure on the trigger. It functioned, when tested, in both automatic and semi-automatic modes. The barrel of the gun had been externally threaded to allow a muzzle attachment to be fitted. Although not loaded with ammunition, much of the ammunition that was recovered with it in the cupboard could have been fired from it.
Count 5 related to a sound moderator. It was marked Ingram M11 9mm Auto, and was suitable for use with the Ingram machine pistol (count 1). It was classified as an accessory to a lethal barrelled weapon, and thus subject to the certificate procedure in section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. The Ingram machine pistol was test fired with the silencer fitted, and operated properly.
Count 2 related to a 7.65mm (.32 Auto) calibre Skorpion machine pistol. The folding stock had been broken off. Like the Ingram machine pistol, this gun was designed successively to discharge two or more missiles without repeated pressure on the trigger. It functioned, when tested, in both automatic and semi-automatic modes. The weapon's selector switch was set for 20 when found, and the safety catch was off. Moreover, this gun was loaded with a full magazine of 15 cartridges. These cartridges were 32" Automatic calibre full metal jacket cartridges, and formed the subject matter of count 8 of the indictment.
Count 3 related to twenty-nine 9mm Browning calibre hollow point cartridges. These cartridges were designed to expand on impact. 12 of these were found with a magazine that could have been fitted to the Ingram machine pistol, 2 more were found in a box with other ammunition and 15 more were found with other ammunition in a sock.
Count 4 related to forty-four 9mm Luger jacketed hollow point cartridges. Like the Browning cartridges, these were designed to expand on impact. 8 cartridges were found in a bag with other ammunition, and the remaining cartridges were found in a further bag containing ammunition.
Count 5 related to forty 9mm Browning full metal jacket cartridges. 5 of these were found with a magazine that could have been fitted to the Ingram machine pistol, 28 cartridges were found in a box of ammunition and a further 7 cartridges were found in a sock which also contained other ammunition.
Count 7 related to fifty-seven 9mm Luger full metal jacket cartridges, 26 of which were found in a bag of ammunition and 31 of which were found in a further such bag.
Count 9 related to twenty-five 9mm Luger calibre full metal jacket cartridges with NATO compatibility, 1 of which was found in one carrier bag of ammunition, 23 of which were found in a second such bag and a further cartridge was found separately in the same cupboard.
The offender was arrested and interviewed on 27 th November 2008. During his interview he offered the explanation that he had been waved down in the street by a man he refused to name who asked him to "hold something for me". Without asking any further questions he agreed. Later that evening there was a knock at his front door. He opened it. A different man was standing there. Again he refused to name him. The man handed him a drill box and told him that he would be back in the morning for it. The offender did not look into the box. He believed it was a drill. He put it under the stairs. He thought nothing more about it. Initially he said he never touched any of the weapons or the ammunition, but he later stated that these were weapons involving a lad who was shot a couple of months earlier and that the guns had been on the street for a long time. However he would not tell the police any more for fear for the safety of his children. He asserted that he had not received any money for holding the tools, just that, as a joiner, he loved tools. He also said that he remembered handling one of the guns when he was shown them a few months earlier.
During the course of the hearing before the Crown Court reference was made to a written basis of plea. Counsel on his behalf said:
"The prosecution would not dispute that the defendant was a minder of material, that is, as I understand, not in dispute, and the reason for his minding the material was explained in his interview. So maybe that does not necessarily impinge on the sentence your Honour would otherwise impose. As I understand it, the defendant has never claimed that he was under immediate threat and indeed in interview he acknowledged that at the time he was not threatened when he received the firearms and ammunition, he was threatened as such, but as he explained in his interview, there was a background of intimidation."
Counsel went on to address the question of the offender's knowledge of the contents of the drill box. Counsel observed that the offender had "said in interview that he did not know what was in the drill box but he suspected – well, he concedes that he knew that it was or had a clear suspicion that it was illegal. So whilst not knowing the nature of what was in the box he knew that the box contained something illegal". The question of a Newton hearing was discussed.
At the end of the discussion the judge observed "I will make the same finding that he (was) only a minder, but it seems...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Paul Gribbin
...not attract consecutive sentences. This principle is set out in the guideline judgment of the Lord Chief Justice (as he then was) in R v Peter Ralphs [2009] EWCA Crim 2055. That principle is also enunciated in the Sentencing Guidelines, effective from 11th June 2012, headed "Offences taken ......
-
R v Granville Freckleton
...to exceed that maximum. 19 In the co-accused's case this court was referred to the decision of Attorney General's Reference No 57 of 2009 ( R v Ralphs) [2009] EWCA Crim. 2555. In that case the then Lord Chief Justice concluded that the statutory maximum and minimum sentences for offences o......
-
R (Appellant) Hall (1) and Another Ferris (2) and Another A Walker (3) and Another P Walker (4) and Another Dan (5) and Another Stones (6) and Another Robertson (7) and Another P (8) (Respondents)
...QC reminded us of the principles which normally govern the imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment, conveniently summarised in R v Ralphs [2009] EWCA Crim. 2555. He invited us to consider whether it is proper and appropriate to impose consecutive terms where this represents the only......
-
R v Robert Anthony Brown
...all the circumstances of that driving, including the results.” 25 Noble was approved in Attorney-General's Ref (No 57 of 2009) [2009] EWCA Crim 2555 ( R v Ralphs) in which, giving the judgment of the court. Lord Judge CJ said (at [27]): “……consecutive terms should not normally be imposed ......
-
Conspiracy: Marital Exemption and Polygamy
...for example RvNoble [2002] EWCA Crim 1713 ). However, according to Lord Judge CJ inAttorney General’s Reference No. 57 of 2009 [2009] EWCA Crim 2555 (at para 28), ‘examples aboundof occasions where consecutive sentences are justifiably imposed ...[This tends to occur where] distinctoffences......
-
Unduly Lenient Sentences (s. 36 CJA 1988): The Correct Approach to Sentencing Where Multiple Deaths Occur as a Result of Dangerous Driving: R v Robert Anthony Brown [2018] EWCA Crim 1775
...EWCACrim 1713 took the same approach. Cumulatively, Noble and the guidelines were approved in AttorneyGeneral’s Ref (No. 57 of 2009) [2009] EWCA Crim 2555, a case better known as Ralphs and morerecently in R v Jenkins [2015] EWCA Crim 105. The court almost appeared in their judgment to labo......
-
Limiting the Role of Previous Convictions at Sentencing
...for example RvNoble [2002] EWCA Crim 1713 ). However, according to Lord Judge CJ inAttorney General’s Reference No. 57 of 2009 [2009] EWCA Crim 2555 (at para 28), ‘examples aboundof occasions where consecutive sentences are justifiably imposed ...[This tends to occur where] distinctoffences......