Mandatory Minimum Firearm Sentences Must Run Consecutively to Drug Offences
A Detailed Commentary on R v Wills [2025] EWCA Crim 811

1. Introduction

In Wills, R v ([2025] EWCA Crim 811) the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), chaired by Lord Justice Dingemans, addressed the Solicitor-General’s reference concerning the sentence imposed on Mr Wills for a combination of serious drug offences and a prohibited-firearm offence.

The central question was whether the Crown Court had erred in ordering the statutory five-year minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited firearm to run concurrently with the drug sentences, thereby yielding an overall term of nine years. The Court of Appeal granted leave and ultimately held that the concurrency decision was wrong in principle. A key precedent now established is that, save in truly exceptional circumstances, the mandatory minimum sentence required by the Firearms Act 1968 must be served consecutively to any sentence for distinct drug-supply offences, so that the deterrent purpose of Parliament’s minimum is not diluted.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court upheld the individual sentence lengths selected by the sentencing judge for each offence (nine years for Class A drug conspiracies; five years for the firearms offence) and accepted a four-year reduction for totality and a one-year reduction for delay.
• However, it found the judge’s structure—making the five-year firearms sentence concurrent—undermined the statutory minimum and contradicted the 2023 Totality Guideline.
• The Court therefore ordered the firearms term to run consecutively, producing an amended total sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment (9 years for drugs + 5 years mandatory minimum for firearms).
• The reference succeeded on this narrow but crucial ground; all other complaints (e.g., discount for late guilty pleas) were considered academic.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited

The judgment makes extensive use of the following:

• Sentencing Council Totality Guideline (1 July 2023): • Explicitly states that where drug dealing is sentenced alongside possession of a prohibited weapon, consecutive sentences “will ordinarily be appropriate” because the firearm offence is distinct and requires separate recognition. • Warns that concurrent sentences should not “improperly undermine” statutory minimum terms.
• Firearms Act 1968, s.5A(2): Imposes a mandatory minimum of five years for possession of a prohibited firearm by an adult.
• Although not named, earlier Court of Appeal cases—R v McGreevy, R v Avis, etc.—have long emphasised deterrence and the need for consecutive sentencing when firearms are involved in drug dealing. (Their principles are echoed rather than formally cited.)

The Court drew heavily on the guideline language rather than particular earlier authorities, signalling that post-guideline sentencing practice now turns predominantly on the guidelines themselves.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Primacy. Parliament has imposed a five-year minimum for prohibited firearms. A concurrent sentence that allows an offender to serve the firearms term within a longer drug sentence nullifies the special deterrent weight intended by Parliament. The Court stressed it must “give effect” to the statutory minimum.
2. Guideline Consistency. The 2023 Totality Guideline provides two independent bases for consecutive sentencing: (i) firearm possession is distinct from drug dealing and (ii) any concurrency would undermine the minimum. The judge’s concurrency decision cut directly against both propositions.
3. Totality Re-Evaluated. Having concluded the five-year firearm term must be consecutive, the Court reconsidered whether any further totality reduction was necessary. Because the sentencing judge had already afforded a large four-year totality reduction when structuring concurrent sentences, no additional discount was warranted. A 14-year total represented a balanced, proportionate response.
4. Limited Re-Opening. The Solicitor-General did not challenge the sentence lengths for individual offences; therefore, the Court confined itself to sentence structure. This maintains respect for trial-judge discretion while correcting structural errors of law.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Sentencing Practice: Crown Court judges must treat the five-year minimum for prohibited firearms as a stand-alone foundation. If the firearm offence is distinct from the principal offence(s)—as it will almost always be—it should attract a consecutive sentence unless exceptional justification exists.
• Prosecutorial Strategy: The Crown is now armed with a Court of Appeal authority to challenge unduly lenient sentences where concurrency erodes mandatory minima. Expect more references in firearms-and-drugs packages.
• Plea-Bargaining Dynamics: Defence teams must advise clients that a guilty plea to a firearm count will almost certainly yield a separate five-year block, even if the drugs sentence eclipses five years.
• Guideline Interpretation: The case clarifies that the bullet-point examples in the Totality Guideline are not illustrative only but prescriptive where statutory minima are involved.
• Comparative Parity: The decision restores parity between firearm-only offenders and those whose firearm possession co-exists with other serious criminality; concurrency would otherwise place the latter in a better position.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Concurrent v. Consecutive Sentences

Concurrent means sentences are served at the same time; the offender serves only the longest term. Consecutive means sentences are served one after the other, adding to the overall time in custody.

Mandatory Minimum Sentence

A sentence length set by Parliament beneath which a judge cannot ordinarily go (five years for prohibited firearms). It is designed to deter and reflect public disapproval of the conduct.

Totality Principle

A principle requiring courts to ensure the overall sentence for multiple offences is “just and proportionate”—neither too harsh nor too lenient—by adjusting concurrency, consecutivity, or length.

Unduly Lenient Sentence Reference

Under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Attorney General or Solicitor General may ask the Court of Appeal to increase a sentence they believe is “unduly lenient.” The Court can increase it only if it falls outside the reasonable range a sentencing judge could properly impose.

Significant Role (Drugs Guideline)

A middle-band culpability category denoting an offender who is trusted by others, has influence in the chain, or handles commercial quantities, but is not a directing mind.

5. Conclusion

R v Wills realigns sentencing practice with both statutory design and Sentencing Council guidance by underscoring that the five-year minimum for prohibited firearms must retain its bite. Where a firearm offence accompanies drug conspiracies, the courts must impose the firearm term consecutively unless exceptional circumstances justify departure. The decision strengthens deterrence, enhances clarity for sentencing judges, and provides a solid checkpoint for prosecutorial references. Going forward, defence advisors must factor an unavoidable additional five years into any calculus involving prohibited weapons, and sentencers must articulate transparent reasons if ever they contemplate concurrency. The case stands as the leading modern authority on safeguarding mandatory minima against erosion through sentencing structure.