Extending Statutory Minimum Sentences to Firearm-Related Conspiracies:
A Detailed Commentary on R v Singh & Others [2025] EWCA Crim 785

Introduction

In R v Singh & Ors, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was invited by the Solicitor General to determine whether the sentences imposed on six gang–related defendants were “unduly lenient”. At the heart of the referral lay two pivotal questions:

1. Should conspiracies to possess firearms attract higher starting points than the Sentencing Council’s guideline for a *single* substantive offence?
2. Where Parliament has imposed a statutory five-year minimum for the substantive offence of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence (s 16A Firearms Act 1968), should sentencing courts mirror that minimum when the charge is instead a conspiracy to commit the same?

Lord Justice Bean, delivering the judgment of the Court, upheld most of the original sentences but substituted higher terms for two defendants, laying down fresh guidance that the statutory minimum for the substantive offence “should effectively apply” to conspiracies unless truly exceptional circumstances exist. The decision clarifies an area where statute, guideline and practical sentencing realities intersect, and it reinforces the Court’s earlier warnings about the societal menace posed by firearms.

Summary of the Judgment

• Facts. The six accused were members or associates of the WoolyO gang operating in south-east London. Over roughly a month in late 2023 they shared (“pooled”) a Springfield XD handgun, executed ride-outs into rival territory, shot a rival (Mr Jombola), orchestrated a robbery, produced menacing videos, and later tried to bribe a civilian witness (Mr Khan) to derail police inquiries.
• First-instance sentences (Basildon Crown Court).
  • Orogun – 14 yrs (conspiracy to possess firearm with intent to endanger life) + 1 yr (conspiracy to pervert) consecutive.
  • Singh – 8 yrs detention (firearm conspiracy) + 1 yr consecutive (pervert).
  • Ayanleye – 5 yrs (firearm conspiracy).
  • Ladeaga – 4½ yrs (firearm conspiracy).
  • Aidoo – 4 yrs detention (firearm conspiracy) + 6 mths concurrent (Rambo knife).
  • Adepoju – 3 yrs (firearm conspiracy) + 1 yr consecutive (pervert).
• Referral Grounds. The Solicitor General argued that the sentencing judge had: (a) failed to uplift the starting points to reflect multi-incident conspiracies; (b) failed to add aggravation for gang rivalry, gun discharge and public risk; (c) ignored the mandatory minimum when sentencing the s 16A conspirators; and (d) treated the perverting-justice count too lightly.
• Court of Appeal result.
  • Sentences upheld for Orogun, Singh, Ayanleye and Adepoju (lenient but within reasonable range or mitigated by “exceptional circumstances”).
  • Sentence increased for Ladeaga from 4½ yrs to 5 yrs to satisfy the statutory minimum principle.
  • Sentence increased for Aidoo from 4 yrs to 5 yrs on the firearm count and from 6 mths to 9 mths concurrent on the knife count (total nonetheless 5 yrs).
• Key holding. Although the statutory minimum does not formally apply to conspiracy offences, courts should reflect Parliament’s intention by imposing not less than five years on an adult conspirator to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, save where this would be “arbitrary and disproportionate”. A markedly lesser role may constitute such exceptional circumstances.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

1. Attorney-General’s Ref No 43 of 2009 (Bennett & Wilkinson) [2009] EWCA Crim 1925 – proclaimed the “gravity of gun crime cannot be exaggerated”, undergirding deterrent-based sentencing.
2. AG Ref (No 4 of 1989) 11 Cr App R (S) 517 – classic articulation of the Court’s limited power to increase sentences: only where they fall outside the range reasonably open to the trial judge.
3. AG Ref (No 132 of 2001) (Johnson) [2002] EWCA Crim 1418 – emphasised the “gross error” and public-confidence rationale behind unduly-lenient references.

The Court leaned heavily on these authorities to (i) justify severe baseline tariffs for gun crime (Bennett & Wilkinson) and (ii) caution against interference unless the sentencing judge’s approach was plainly aberrant (AG Refs 1989 & 2001).

2. Legal Reasoning

2.1 Conspiracy versus Substantive Offence

The Solicitor General urged a blanket increase over guideline starting points whenever a conspiracy is charged, because conspiracies typically indicate more planning, duration and multiplicity of criminal acts. The Court declined to create such a blanket rule. It reasoned that the Sentencing Council’s Firearms guideline already captures many “conspiratorial” features—significant planning, leading role, prolonged incident—under culpability and harm. Therefore, unless the facts markedly exceed what the guideline contemplates, a judge need not mechanically uplift for “conspiracy”.

Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged that on the facts it might have started at 16 years for Orogun, but, applying the “margin of appreciation”, it did not deem the trial judge’s 14 years “unduly” lenient.

2.2 Statutory Minimum Sentences for s 16A Offence

Section 311 Sentencing Act 2020 mandates a minimum five-year term (for adults) for the substantive offence under s 16A. Parliament’s object is deterrence. The minimum, however, is not expressly triggered for a conspiracy. The Court concluded:

It would make a nonsense of Parliament’s intention to ignore the statutory minimum where the conspiracy “involved greater criminality than a single substantive offence”.

Accordingly, where conspirators’ conduct mirrors or exceeds the harm contemplated by the substantive offence, sentencing courts “should effectively apply” the five-year floor.

2.3 Exceptional Circumstances Doctrine

Drawing from paragraph 9 of the Sentencing Council guideline (Step 3), the Court reaffirmed that a term below the statutory minimum is permissible only where it would be “arbitrary and disproportionate”. In practice:

• Applied to Aidoo. Youth (18), no previous convictions and a brief period of involvement were insufficient—no exceptional circumstances; five years imposed.
• Applied to Adepoju. Very limited role (late entry, no ride-outs, absent from videos) was exceptional; three years left intact.

2.4 Perverting the Course of Justice

Although the Crown pressed for harsher terms, the Court emphasised deference to trial judges, especially where they presided over evidence. One-year consecutive sentences for Singh, Orogun and Adepoju were preserved as falling within the reasonable band.

3. Impact of the Judgment

• Sentencing Consistency. The case bridges a doctrinal gap: conspiracies to possess firearms with intent to cause fear now presumptively carry the same five-year minimum as substantive offences, save in rare circumstances.
• Guideline Interpretation. It confirms that the existing Firearms guideline already embeds many “conspiracy” considerations, discouraging automatic uplifts solely on that label.
• Gang-Related Firearm Crime. Reiterates that group possession and “pool weapons” warrant high culpability findings; courts will likely continue to treat gun conspiracies as among the gravest public-order threats.
• Exceptional Circumstances Clarified. A genuinely peripheral role can override the statutory minimum, but factors such as youth or clean record alone seldom suffice.
• Practical Sentencing Advice. Prosecution advocates must raise any “conspiracy uplift” arguments explicitly at first instance; failure to do so limits appellate intervention.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Conspiracy. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act. Liability attaches even if the act is never completed.
• “Pool weapon”. A firearm jointly possessed by a group, accessible to members as needed—treated by courts as significantly aggravating.
• Statutory minimum sentence. A floor set by Parliament under which custodial terms cannot normally fall; imposed to deter particular crimes (here, certain firearm offences).
• Unduly lenient sentence (ULS) reference. Under s 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 the Attorney General (or Solicitor General) can ask the Court of Appeal to increase a sentence that appears outside the reasonable range.
• Exceptional circumstances. Factors that would render application of the statutory minimum “arbitrary and disproportionate”. Must be truly out of the ordinary.
• Margin of appreciation. Deference the appellate court gives to the trial judge, recognising sentencing as an “art rather than a science”.

Conclusion

R v Singh & Ors cements an important sentencing principle: where conspirators seek to possess firearms with intent to cause fear of violence, courts should normally impose no less than the statutory minimum applicable to the substantive offence, unless truly exceptional factors would make that result unjust. At the same time, the Court underscores its reluctance to interfere with trial-level discretion absent gross error. The ruling harmonises legislative intent with guideline application, offers clearer markers for “exceptional circumstances”, and amplifies the judiciary’s continuing intolerance of gun-related gang violence. Future sentencers—and advocates—will need to grapple explicitly with these clarified expectations whenever firearm conspiracies reach the dock.