SENTENCING STATEMENTS

At the hearing on 17 December 2024, Lady Hood said:

"James Maris, on 22 October 2024 you tendered a plea of guilty by way of accelerated section 76 procedure to charges under the Firearms Act 1968 of (1) attempting to manufacture a firearm without authority to do so; (2) being in possession of a firearm without holding a firearms certificate; (3) being in possession of a prohibited weapon; and (4) being in possession of ammunition without holding a firearms certificate.

On 22 May 2023, the police received intelligence that you had ordered online, a ‘lower parts kit’ for an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.  This kit is known to be used in the manufacture of so-called 3D printed firearms such as the FGC-9.  On 24 May 2023, the police attended at your home to execute a search warrant.  Whilst under caution, you stated to the police that you were fascinated with firearms, and had been building one which was within a box in your bedroom.  You said that you had built this for a hobby, and had no intention of using it to hurt anybody.  On the police entering your bedroom, they found a large display of replica weapons, and spent ammunition and cartridges.  Within the box which you had described, the police found 3D printed parts of a FGC-9 printed weapon.  Also within the box was a handwritten letter.  This letter acknowledged that if it was being read, you had probably been “caught”.  It stated that you were building the firearm because of your interest in engineering and passion for firearms, and not to cause harm or spread any message or belief.  You acknowledged that people would wonder why you hadn’t joined a gun club, but said that you were too scared to talk to officers and attend at a range to obtain a firearms certificate, and also that you thought that your health would make you ineligible for a firearms certificate.  You apologised for your actions, and confirmed that they were your sole responsibility.  The police also found in your bedroom a 3D printer (which had previously been bought for you by your parents, and used for innocent purposes), and a number of tools and items for use in the manufacture of 3D printed firearms.  At a subsequent police interview, you confirmed that you knew building an FGC-9 semi-automatic weapon would be unlawful.  Nevertheless, you commenced building it – although there came a stage when you regretted embarking on the project, and wrote the letter which I have already described.  You expressed an intention ultimately to destroy the components or hand them into the police.  Police examined your computer, and found that it had a TOR browser installed, and a suite of digital tools allowing the user to hide their internet history.  Files relating to the weapon you were manufacturing were found, but were not accessible.  There was no evidence of extreme political views on your part, or any connection to terrorism or organised crime.

The firearm which you were manufacturing was a semi-automatic firearm.  Forensic scientists assessed that you were nearing the end of the manufacturing process, and you were in possession of all of the parts required to finalise the building of the complete firearm.  This is the basis of Charge 1.  Charges 2 and 3 essentially relate to component parts of the FGC-9 which you were in possession of.  Charge 4 relates to live ammunition found, which was capable of being discharged from an FGC-9 carbine.

James Maris, you are 19 years of age, and have no previous convictions.  You first appeared on petition on 29 May 2023, and were admitted to bail at that point.  There had been discussions about tendering a plea of guilty, and a letter indicating a desire to plead guilty to the indictment was received on 17 September 2024.  You have been diagnosed with Autism Disorder, ADHD and significant anxiety.  Your background circumstances are set out in a detailed Criminal Justice Social Work Report, supported by other Reports, the terms of all of which I take into account.  You told the author of the Report that you had focussed on your creation of the gun, without considering or appreciating that it is illegal, and that you were creating something which could cause serious harm.  When you did begin to realise this, you became terrified for yourself and your parents, such that you were relieved when the police attended.  You rely heavily on your parents for aspects of your daily living, and management of your finances, and require support with your physical and mental health.  You currently have difficulties leaving the house, although it is thought that this may improve once the court proceedings come to an end.  You have, however, been able to attain qualifications through online learning.  The author of the CJSWR accepts the assessment of a psychiatrist that the likelihood of your reoffending is low.  Your GP has expressed concerns about your vulnerability and resilience in a custodial setting.

Given your age, I take into account the Sentencing Guideline on Sentencing Young People.  This provides that a custodial sentence should only be imposed when the Court is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate, and that if a custodial sentence is imposed on a young person, it should be shorter than that which would have been imposed on an older person for the same or a similar offence.

However, in respect of Charges 1 and 3, because of the nature of these offences and your age when these offences were committed, the court is required to sentence you to a minimum of three years’ detention, unless there are exceptional circumstances relating to either you or to the offence which justify the court not doing so – and your counsel argues this morning that this is such a case.  I have taken into account the agreed narrative, which I have summarised, the contents of the CJSWR, and all that has been said on your behalf.

• As your counsel accepts, it is only in rare cases that such exceptional circumstances exist.  Parliament has imposed a mandatory sentencing regime for cases of this type which gives greater emphasis to considerations of retribution and deterrence than the personal circumstances of the individual offender. 
• In considering whether exceptional circumstances have been established, it is clear from prior case law that one cannot look at each circumstance separately and conclude that alone it would, or would not, constitute an exceptional circumstance – it is necessary to take a holistic approach, since there may be cases where no one single factor is exceptional but the collective impact of all the relevant circumstances truly makes the case exceptional.  I must ask myself whether taking account of all the relevant circumstances, it appears that your case falls outside the range of cases which Parliament can be taken to have had in mind as the norm, such that the imposition of the statutory minimum may be said to be arbitrary and disproportionate. 
• I do wish to make it very clear that your young age does not, in itself, constitute exceptional circumstances – that is clear from the legislation, given that Parliament has specified that a minimum sentence should apply to offenders of your age, and has already adjusted the length of that minimum sentence to differentiate between adults and young persons such as yourself.
• The Courts have also made it clear that an early guilty plea is not in itself an exceptional circumstance justifying a sentence lower than the minimum set by Parliament.
• In this case, your suffering from the conditions with which you are diagnosed need not in itself be an exceptional circumstance - you were able over a period of time to obtain the parts for manufacturing a semi-automatic firearm, and reach an advanced stage in its construction, and the letter shows clearly that you knew that what you were doing was wrong.  In particular, you knew about the requirement for a firearms certificate, and knew that you did not hold one and likely would not be eligible to be granted one.  However, I do take into account the extent to which your pervasive developmental disorder played a part in your actions in constructing the weapon.
• Furthermore, the CJSWR does indicate that these difficulties with your physical and mental health mean that you would find a prison environment particularly difficult and challenging – a factor which has in the past been held to constitute exceptional circumstances, when combined with other positive considerations.

Approaching matters in the round, weighing up your youth and immaturity, your background including your lack of previous convictions and the medical conditions from which you suffer, your expressions of remorse, the lack of any sinister or concerning material found on the computer, your low risk of reoffending and the psychiatrist’s opinion that this focussed interest in firearms has passed, I am persuaded that exceptional circumstances exist in your case, such that I am not bound to impose a sentence of three years’ detention.

The next stage of this process is determining what sentence should appropriately be imposed in respect of these Charges, and the other two Charges.  I consider the Charges to all be so inter-related as to be one single incident of offending.  As Mr Roy indicated, the Court could then impose a lower custodial sentence or an alternative to custody.  I would like to impose sentence today, if that were possible, giving you clarity and finality going forward.  However, unfortunately I still need some further information.  The CJSWR discusses possible disposals, including the possibility of a Community Payback Order, which can have more than one component, some of which are discussed in the Report.  The CJSWR raises concerns about your suitability for unpaid work, but states that “Should the Court feel that Unpaid Work would be a necessary component of any community disposal however, this could be further explored, to establish whether a personalised placement suitable to his abilities could be found”.  I consider that I do require to fully understand what disposals are open to me as an alternative to custody, in particular the availability of a suitable unpaid work placement.  I note that you have been able to attain online qualifications.  I am therefore going to adjourn for a brief period to allow a supplementary CJSWR to be prepared on that point.  The diet will be adjourned to 21 January 2025."

At the hearing on 21 January 2025, Lady Hood said:

"James Maris, on 22 October 2024 you tendered a plea of guilty by way of accelerated section 76 procedure to charges under the Firearms Act 1968 of (1) attempting to manufacture a firearm without authority to do so; (2) being in possession of a firearm without holding a firearms certificate; (3) being in possession of a prohibited weapon; and (4) being in possession of ammunition without holding a firearms certificate.

I adjourned to a diet of sentence on 17 December 2024, to allow for the preparation of a CJSWR.  When the case called on that date, I was addressed in mitigation on your behalf by Mr Roy, and had also had an opportunity to consider the terms of the CJSWR.  You will remember that I explained on that date, that in respect of Charges 1 and 3, a minimum sentence of detention is set down which the court must impose unless it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances relating either to you or to the offence, which would justify the Court not doing so.  I took account of all of the circumstances, and the relevant legal framework, and I decided that I was satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed in your case.  That meant that I was not bound to impose the minimum sentence of detention.  However, I then had to determine what sentence I ought to appropriately impose – you will remember that I needed further information before I could do that.  I now have the supplementary CJSWR which I needed, so can now proceed to sentence today.

I confirm that in reaching my decision as to the appropriate sentence to impose, I have taken into account the circumstances of the offence, your personal circumstances, the risk assessment of the author of the CJSWR, and what has been said to me in mitigation by Mr Roy, as well as the Sentencing Guideline on Sentencing Young People.  I’m not going to repeat all of those matters at length, because I set them out on the previous occasion.  I also take into account your pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity.  I have now had the benefit of the supplementary CJSWR.  This confirms that, were I to impose a Community Payback Order, the relevant authorities are confident that they can provide you with an unpaid work placement, and they assess you as suitable for that.  Indeed, it is the opinion of the author of the Report that not only would this underline to you the seriousness of the offences to which you have pled guilty, but would provide a challenge which might be beneficial to your development.  The Report suggests that it may be appropriate to allow a longer time than normal to complete hours of unpaid work.  The Report also suggests that a Supervision Requirement would provide both continued support, and a means of monitoring your conduct and behaviour.  Finally, it suggests that I might consider imposing a conduct requirement which would allow the Social Work Department to check and search any electronic devices in your possession, thus providing an additional level of scrutiny in managing you in a community setting.  The Report also suggests that imposing a Restriction of Liberty Order might act as both deterrent and a means of monitoring.

I consider that Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 are so inter-related as to be one single incident of offending.  I therefore consider it appropriate to impose a cumulo sentence.  In all of the circumstances, I am persuaded that a community disposal, rather than a custodial disposal, is appropriate in your case. 

In the whole circumstances, I will therefore impose a Community Payback Order, for the period of 3 years.  This Order will have a number of components, or requirements:

(i)              you will have to complete 300 hours of unpaid work.  This work will be carried out under the instruction of your Supervising Officer who will be a member of the Criminal Justice Social Work Department that is a social worker with whom you must stay in touch. He/she is responsible for allocating you to the work that you will undertake which must be completed under his/her supervision and in a satisfactory manner. You must report to this social worker as required. This work must be completed within the period of 3 years

(ii)             I am imposing a Supervision requirement for the period of 3 years.  During this period you must attend appointments with your Supervising Officer at the place and times instructed, for the purposes of promoting your rehabilitation, and your continuing good behaviour.

(iii)           I am also going to impose a conduct requirement in the terms suggested in the CJSWR, in order to secure or promote good behaviour and prevent you from further offending.  That conduct requirement will be for the period of 3 years, and will be in the following terms:

1. You shall not own or possess more than one mobile phone and more than one computer (whether desktop, laptop or otherwise)

2. You shall not own or possess any such device without advising your Supervising Officer/Police of the serial number of that device.

3. You shall make any such device available upon request to the Police, Supervising Officer or others acting on their instructions, and provide all passwords to access the device.

4. You shall allow Police Officers and Social Workers responsible for or involved in your supervision, or others acting on their instructions, to inspect electronic equipment used by you and capable of accessing the Internet when requested to do so, with or without advance notice.

5. You shall not use any encryption software on any such device for any purpose, nor shall you delete your internet browsing history cache.

If you fail to comply with any of the requirements that are being imposed in this Order, you will be reported back to this court and be dealt with for that failure. If it is proved that you failed to comply without reasonable excuse with the terms of any requirement, the court can fine you, revoke the order and deal with you as if the order had not been imposed, revoke the order and sentence you to imprisonment, vary the order to impose a new requirement or vary, revoke or discharge any requirement imposed by the Order, or impose both a fine and vary the Order.  If your circumstances change while the order is in force, you or your supervising officer will be entitled to apply to the court to have the order varied, revoked or discharged.  Do you understand the terms of the order, and are you willing to comply?

I also propose to impose a Restriction of Liberty Order for a 12 month period, such that you will be restricted to your home between the hours of 8pm and 6am.  If you leave your home during those hours, you will be in breach of the Order.  I am also required to impose an Electronic Monitoring Order together with that.  This is a direct alternative to custody.  You will be required to wear a tagging device, which gives out a signal, alerting staff if you are not present at a place to which you are restricted during the period when you are meant to be there.  All breaches of the Order are detected, and serious breaches must be reported to the Court without delay.  If it is proved that you have failed to comply with the requirements of the Order without reasonable excuse, the Court may fine you, vary the Order, or revoke the Order and re-sentence you for the original offence.  The Order can be reviewed.  Do you understand, and agree to comply with the conditions of the Order?

The tendering of an early plea by you is recognised by my imposing a community disposal, rather than a custodial sentence, so no further modification of the sentence is made in that regard."