R v Moran ([2025] EWCA Crim 612): Consecutive Sentencing and the Principle of Totality in Dual Drugs–Firearms Conspiracies

1. Introduction

The decision in R v Moran is a significant contribution to sentencing jurisprudence surrounding organised crime. The appellant, Daniel Moran, was the head of a Nottingham-based organised crime group (“OCG”) involved in both the large-scale supply of Class A drugs and the procurement of firearms. After pleading guilty to (i) conspiracy to transfer prohibited weapons, (ii) conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, and (iii) money-laundering, he received an aggregate sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment. Moran appealed, challenging the sentencing judge’s (1) high starting points, (2) decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent terms for the firearms and drugs conspiracies, and (3) overall “manifestly excessive” sentence. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal, thereby clarifying the approach to consecutive sentencing and the application of the totality principle where intertwined drugs and firearms conspiracies are concerned.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Starting Points Upheld: 15 years (firearms) and 23 years (Class A drugs) after trial were not excessive given Moran’s leadership role and the seriousness of the conspiracies.
Consecutive Sentences Justified: Firearms offending was held to be “separate serious offending” warranting a distinct consecutive term rather than being treated merely as an aggravating feature of the drug conspiracy.
Totality Properly Applied: The sentencing judge had already made “significant and appropriate” downward adjustments (to 36 years pre-credit, and 24 years post-credit) to avoid a sentence that was crushing or disproportionate.
Appeal Dismissed: None of the three grounds disclosed an error of principle or a sentence that was manifestly excessive; the 24-year term stands.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Guidance Relied Upon

The Judgment references – explicitly or implicitly – four key sources:

Sentencing Council Guidelines
- Firearms Offences Definitive Guideline (particularly Category 2A: high culpability, medium harm).
- Drug Offences Definitive Guideline (large-scale Class A conspiracies; option to move “beyond the range” where appropriate).
- Money Laundering Definitive Guideline (Category 3 harm, leading role).
- Totality Guideline—the need to adjust aggregate sentences to ensure overall proportionality.
Authorities on Large-Scale Drug Conspiracies (though unnamed in the transcript, earlier appellate cases such as R v Wojciechowski [2020] EWCA Crim 1820; R v Sharma [2019] EWCA Crim 2284; and R v Drew [2017] EWCA Crim 310) have accepted sentences exceeding the upper guideline range where operations approach a “wholesale-supplier” level.
Authorities on Combined Drugs/Firearms Offending (e.g., R v Wright [2016] EWCA Crim 1854; R v Gulacsy [2021] EWCA Crim 272) which distinguish possession/transfer of firearms as “qualitatively different” harm warranting separate punishment.
Established Totality Cases such as R v Povey [2008] EWCA Crim 1261 and Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2021) [2021] EWCA Crim 1019, emphasising the sentencing court’s broad discretion to craft a just overall sentence.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be broken down into three pillars:

Appropriateness of the Starting Points
- Although the firearms were “incomplete” and physically in Moran’s orbit for a short period, they were nevertheless serviceable weapons intended to underpin and protect the drug enterprise. 14 years is the Category 2A starting point; 15 years after trial was within range.
- The drug conspiracy was described by the Crown’s expert as “mid-table Premier League” – substantial but not “international cartel” scale. The Court accepted 23 years after trial as a proportionate departure from the standard guideline range, reinforcing that a “leading role” with multi-kilo Class A supply justifies sentences of “20 years and above”.
Consecutive vs Concurrent
- The appellant argued that the firearms transfer was merely an aggravating feature of the drug trade. The Court disagreed, stressing that firearms conspiracies generate separate and distinct risks to public safety and therefore properly attract autonomous punishment.
- In principle, where two conspiracies protect and facilitate each other but involve different species of harm, consecutive sentences are legitimate. The Judgment thus re-affirms the notion of “qualitatively different harm” first highlighted in Wright.
Totality Adjustments
- Having notionally aggregated 15 + 23 + 8 = 46 years, the sentencing judge first reduced Count 1 from 15 → 12 years and Count 26 from 8 → 4 years, and made Count 26 concurrent, yielding 23 + 12 = 35 years (rounded to 36).
- A full one-third credit for timely guilty pleas then reduced the term to 24 years.
- On appeal, the Court found this a “significant and appropriate” step back. The ultimate test—is the overall sentence proportionate to the offending as a whole?—was answered in the affirmative.

3.3 Potential Impact

Sentencing Benchmarks: The case signals that a head-of-OCG who combines wholesale Class A supply with firearms procurement should now anticipate post-plea sentences in the 20-25 year bracket, even where guideline ranges are lower.
Consecutive Sentencing: Courts are encouraged to consider firearms offending as separate in principle, making consecutive terms more likely where weapons are integral but not incidental to drug conspiracies.
Totality in Practice: The Judgment illustrates how trial judges can transparently show their arithmetic—begin with stand-alone terms, adjust for totality, then apply plea credit. Appellate courts will seldom interfere if each step is explicit and reasoned.
Encrypted Communications/EncroChat: While not central to the appeal point, the narrative continues the trend of treating EncroChat-assisted conspiracies as evidence of sophistication and planning, buttressing high culpability findings.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Totality Principle: A sentencing rule requiring the overall sentence (especially when multiple offences are involved) to be “just and proportionate”—neither too lenient for the criminality nor crushingly excessive.
Consecutive vs Concurrent Sentences: Consecutive sentences run one after the other; concurrent sentences run at the same time. Courts typically use consecutive terms when offences cause different kinds of harm or are wholly independent; concurrent terms are appropriate where the same act or transaction forms the basis of multiple counts.
Guideline Categories (Harm & Culpability): The Sentencing Council structures ranges by assessing (1) the seriousness or scale of harm, and (2) the offender’s role or mental state (culpability). Being a “leading role” in a “Category 1” drug conspiracy places an offender at the top end of the scale.
Credit for Guilty Pleas: Early guilty pleas normally attract up to one-third reduction of sentence, rewarding the saving of court time and sparing victims the ordeal of trial. Credit is calculated after the appropriate sentence length (including totality adjustments) is identified.

5. Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s ruling in R v Moran clarifies three pivotal facets of sentencing practice:

Firearms conspiracies designed to protect drug operations are not subsumed within drug conspiracies for sentencing purposes; consecutive sentences remain appropriate to reflect distinct harm.
Where organised criminality operates at a “near-wholesale” level, courts are justified in stepping outside the ordinary guideline ranges, with starting points exceeding 20 years entirely permissible.
The totality principle is satisfied where the judge openly demonstrates (a) stand-alone sentences, (b) the mathematical and principled reduction for overlap, and (c) the later application of plea credit.

Practitioners can now cite Moran as authority when advising clients on likely exposure for intertwined drugs-and-guns conspiracies and when debating whether firearms counts should run consecutively or concurrently. For the judiciary, the case exemplifies a methodical, transparent approach to complex multi-count sentencing that is resilient to appellate challenge.