A man's nine month prison sentence for firearms offences was quashed yesterday after his appeal met with success in Supreme Court.

Acting Chief Justice Ian Kawaley replaced the sentence with 11 days in prison - the time Ernest Roberts has already spent on remand.

In his written judgment Mr. Justice Kawaley maintained that the illegal possession of firearms must still warrant a custodial sentence to mark the gravity of the offence.

In July 2004 Roberts, 58, was sentenced to two nine-month sentences, served concurrently, for two air pistols found in his Smith's home. In an April 2004 raid Police found one Crossman air pistol and a Gamo air pistol, as well as an Olan 12 signal flare launcher with flares and a wrist rocket sling shot.

Roberts, who lives on Knapton Hill, pleaded guilty to five counts of possession in his Magistrates' Court trial.

In addition to the prison sentences, Roberts was fined $1,000 for both the wrist rocket launcher and the flare launcher and $500 for the flares.

During the trial, defence lawyer Mark Pettingill urged Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner to be lenient on Roberts, pointing out that his client had no prior convictions.

He informed the court that these were minor weapons and that they had been stored away.

And he went on to say that the weapons were so old that he "could spit the pellets harder" than the weapons could discharge them.

Mr. Pettingill also told the court that it was Roberts' ex-girlfriend who had taken the firearms out of storage and informed the Police of there whereabouts.

"Hell hath no fury greater than a woman scorned," Mr. Warner told Mr. Pettingill.

But Mr. Warner felt that "times have changed with regard to this community and violence in this community..." and that no possession of prohibited weapons or firearms could be taken lightly.

However less then one month after Roberts' case a teenager was fined only $250 for possessing a similar gun .

In his written judgment, Mr. Justice Kawaley said yesterday there was no clear sentencing guideline for magistrates in such possession cases. Thus, he noted, he could not deem Roberts' sentence to be harsh and excessive.

However, Mr. Justice Kawaley attempted to suggest the appropriate sentencing principles for such future cases.

In comparing Bermuda's Firearms Act of 1973 to similar legislation in England, Mr. Justice Kawaley noted that offenders normally serve immediate custodial sentences, mitigating circumstances notwithstanding. However, he wrote, though the English legislation supported prison sentences for similar offences to Roberts', Bermuda had taken the "Draconian step of legislating minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment".

In his judgment he stated that any defendant convicted of offences which demand a five-year sentence under the Firearms Act 1973 should "expect to receive an immediate custodial sentence, irrespective of the type of weapon involved, a guilty plea, your age and/or previous good character on the offender's part," he said.

But Mr. Justice Kawaley cited a previous case in which a Bermudian man, guilty of a similar crime, was sentenced on appeal to a prison term equal to his time spent on remand.

Referring to this case, Mr. Justice Kawaley said "a similar approach is in my view also required (in this case) because such further incarceration would be inherently unjust."

Although further incarceration wasn't called for, he said, a custodial sentence was required "to mark the gravity" of such firearms offences. "Accordingly I would quash the sentences of nine months imprisonment imposed (on the two counts) and substitute in each case concurrent sentence of 11 days," he said ensuring Roberts' immediate release.