Delucca, Rahuel

Rahuel Delucca was convicted in June 2006 of possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, possession of a shotgun, and possession of 200 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

Mr Delucca received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a notional determinate sentence of 11 years.

This sentence was made up of eight years in respect of possession of a firearm with intent and a further three years for possession of a shotgun and possession of ammunition.

The CCRC received an application for review of Mr Delucca’s sentence in October 2008.

The offences for which Mr Delucca were convicted were not “serious specified offences” within the meaning of section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Mr Delucca had previously appealed his sentence. The Court of Appeal accepted that he had been unlawfully sentenced in respect of the consecutive sentence for the less serious offences.

However, the court kept the total notional determinate sentence unchanged at 11 years, even though the maximum sentence specified by statute for possession with intent was ten years.

The court ruled that “notional” could mean that it was not a sentence to be served at all and therefore did not offend against the statutory maximum.

During review, the CCRC considered that this judgment could not be reconciled with the leading case of R v Lang (2005).

In the CCRC’s view, a notional determinate sentence could not exceed the statutory maximum for the offence, as stated in R v Lang.

The CCRC concluded that there was a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would find that the sentence was wrong in principle.

The CCRC referred the sentence in July 2009.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence in March 2010.