A police chief today accused judges of ignoring mandatory sentences for gun possession.
Bernard Hogan-Howe, chief constable of Merseyside, said offenders are getting the wrong message because judges are inconsistent in sentencing.
He said: “There is no excuse for carrying a firearm and the mandatory five-year sentence should be implemented consistently.”
The mandatory term was introduced in 2004 amid public concern over gun crime.
But according to the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) most recent figures, the average sentence handed down for the offence in 2005 was 47 months and only 40% of offenders were given the mandatory minimum sentence that year.
Mr Hogan-Howe, whose force is investigating the shooting of 11-year-old Rhys Jones last year, has held meetings with the local judiciary and members of the legal profession to discuss the effects of gun crime on the community.
Speaking to The Times, he said: “Generally I feel the judiciary are supportive about what we are trying to do about gun crime and we have seen some excellent sentences which send out the right message.
“But I would like to see that happen more consistently. Locally there is evidence of sentencing where the power has been available and not been used and that is simply wrong.
“I want very heavy sentences for possession of firearms which would deter people from arming others or carrying guns themselves.”
Last October, Natasha Peniston was jailed for just three years for possession of a gun which accidentally killed her 12-year-old daughter, Kamilah.
But, the court had heard, Peniston had been pressured by others into keeping the weapon and
Mr Justice Holland said such exceptional circumstances justified the lower term.
A spokesman for the MoJ said: “Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts.
“The mandatory five-year sentence for possession of a firearm is a starting point.
“Judges must then take aggravating and mitigating factors into consideration when determining the final sentence.”
On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Hogan-Howe denied he was attacking judges and said there had been some “excellent examples of effective sentencing”.
“Only a couple of weeks ago in Merseyside, two men found in possession of 11 firearms and seven silencers - one received a 15-year sentence and the other eight,” he said.
“Now that’s the type of sentence that starts to be a deterrent.”
He said he accepted that there were occasions when the minimum term was not appropriate, such as very young people leaned on by criminals to store a weapon.
“But I’m afraid those are very rare occasions and the thing is, we can get through to criminals if we start to sentence in the right way.”
He went on: “The value of a gun, in cash terms, is very low - it can be as low as £500.
“Compared to other items that are sold and bought by criminals, it’s a relatively low sum and if we can get it into their minds that not only is it a low sum of money but you are going to go to prison for 10 years or 15 years they will listen.
“We’ve got to get that message consistently and I’m afraid at the moment I just think it’s inconsistent.”
Shadow home secretary David Davis said: “The Government have patently failed to get a grip on gun crime, with a four-fold increase in gun-related violence under Labour.
“The problem is, they are happy to pass tough laws in order to get a good headline only to simply not enforce them - allowing the situation to deteriorate at great risk to the public.
“As well as failing to enforce the law, our porous borders allow weapons to simply flow into the country while the Government’s failure to combat the scourge of drugs also fuels so much
violent crime.”
In a statement, the Home Office said: ``We introduced the five-year minimum sentence as part of the Government's fight against gun crime to ensure that those possessing prohibited weapons received a substantial sentence.
“The average sentence increased from 27.3 months in 2003 to 47.3 months in 2005. Before the legislation was introduced the average sentence was only 18 months.
“The legislation includes provision for the courts to consider where exceptional circumstances might make a lesser sentence appropriate.
“We have set in place tough legislation but it is appropriate that sentencing is ultimately a matter for the courts.”
Merseyside Police Authority said today that it fully backed the Chief Constable's comments.
Rose Bailey, a member of the Police Authority and Liverpool City Councillor for the Croxteth ward where Rhys Jones was shot in the neck, said: “We fully endorse and support the police Chief Constable on his comments that he’s made today.
“We definitely think there should be a mandatory minimum sentence. Judges are not using it as a minimum sentence, hence the reduction in sentences that they are giving out.
“I also support the local campaign in the media for a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone in the possession of a firearm.”
Ms Bailey said that although fewer guns were on the streets and more money and officers were targeting gang-related crime, the message that criminals with firearms would be dealt with
harshly needed to be stronger.
She said: “I don’t think the message is being driven home. If anyone is minding or in possession of a firearm, temporarily, on behalf of someone, or whatever... If there is a gun in their possession they know is going to be used for criminal activity, then they should also get the minimum mandatory sentence.
“I think it’s only fair that they should realise that. No-one can bully them into keeping a gun and they are using it in the courts as an excuse to get off as mitigating circumstances that I don’t believe stack up.”
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: ``The important thing about gun crime is that we have the policing and support for the police to enable us to root out gun crime.
“We had set sentencing that is very high - five years for possession of a gun - for magistrates to use.
“It is tough sentencing to take action alongside more policing in hotspots, more metal detection, more undercover policing, more stop and search powers, and more surveillance.”
A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office said: ``If, in any individual case, the police (or the CPS) believe that a mandatory minimum term has not been imposed for gun crime for reasons that are not justified, it is open to them to ask the Attorney General to consider referring the case to the court of appeal as unduly lenient.
“This provides a clear mechanism for sentences to be reviewed and checked against the statutory framework, sentencing guidelines and case law.
“The number of cases referred for failure to impose a mandatory minimum sentence is small.”