AG’s Reference Dismissed

The Registrar of Criminal Appeals instructed Stephanie Panchkowry, who led Junior Counsel, Caroline Moonan to respond to an Attorney General’s Reference.

The Court declined to interfere with the sentence, having granted the Attorney General leave to bring the application.

The overall sentence of 3 years and 5 months for possession of a firearm was not increased: [2026] EWCA Crim 694.

Stephanie Panchkowry, leading Caroline Moonan, represented a male in a re-trial charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life.

The respondent had pleaded guilty to simple possession of the firearm and possession of the ammunition in 2024 but he denied being part of a conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life.

The respondent had been recalled on his licence for an earlier offence of stabbing a male with a knife multiple times while forcibly removing his watch. He received a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment; the expiry of his original sentence was 18 February 2029. As a consequence of his recall, no time spent on remand awaiting his trial counted towards his sentence for the offences to which he had pleaded guilty.

The first trial was on 17 April 2024. He stood trial with his co-defendants, Mr V and three other men. On 29 April 2024, HHJ Wright made terminatory rulings upon the close of the prosecution case in respect of the three other men. The prosecution sought to appeal some of these rulings. No expedited appeal was requested by the prosecution and the jury were discharged. The appeal to challenge the rulings succeeded.

On 3 February 2025, there was a second trial before HHJ Ezzat. The three males were acquitted and the respondent was acquitted of possession of a second firearm. The jury were unable to reach verdicts in respect of other counts which related to the respondent and Mr V.

On 17 November 2025, the respondent and Mr V were tried on a third occasion. There was now only one substantive count for the Respondent for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. The respondent was unanimously acquitted.

On 19 December 2025, the respondent was sentenced to 3 years and 5 months’ custody. Stephanie successfully submitted that the Court should find that exceptional circumstances existed so as not to pass the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of the one firearm; that being the delay between the discharge of the first jury and the sentence for the possession of the firearm.

The Attorney General submitted that the sentence was unduly lenient because: it should have been sentenced as category 1 for harm; and exceptional circumstances should not have been found allowing the sentence to be below the mandatory minimum term of 5 years’ imprisonment.

The Court considered the scope and limitations of its powers to interfere with sentence.  Having done so (at [28]), the Court dismissed the Attorney General’s application. ‘Having regard to the considerable care exercised by the Recorder in explaining his reasoning, as we have set out above, we are not satisfied that he miscategorised the offender’s possession offence. In our judgment he was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did for the reasons he gave.’ Further (at [31]) ‘In the light of the reasoning that led HHJ Wright to decline to sentence the offender in or about April 2024, it was open to the Recorder, in our judgment, to conclude that the circumstances were exceptional and justified him in moderating the impact of the 5-year statutory minimum as he did. We emphasise that this is an entirely fact sensitive decision that the Recorder was entitled to reach the conclusion he did.’