R v Usherwood & Others [2025] EWCA Crim 920: Protecting Criminal Commerce Counts as “Gain” — Schedule 21 Starting Points for Organised Crime Murders Clarified

Introduction

This commentary examines the decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in Usherwood & Ors, R v [2025] EWCA Crim 920 (27 June 2025), delivered by Lord Justice Edis. The case concerns renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence by three defendants — Paula Usherwood (41), Carla McGuire (54), and Leonard Ward (44) — following convictions for murder after a lengthy multi-handed trial before Turner J. The murder arose from a turf war between rival drug syndicates in Nottingham and culminated in the fatal stabbing of Michael Anton O’Connor on 10 November 2021 outside 121 Wilfred Crescent West in The Meadows.

The sentencing framework was governed by section 322 and Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (the Sentencing Code), under which life imprisonment is mandatory for murder, and the court must specify a minimum term. The judge set minimum terms, deducting time spent on remand, as follows: Ward — 32 years (less 569 days), Usherwood — 30 years (less 575 days), and McGuire — 20 years (less 574 days).

The central issues on appeal were:

Whether the murder fell within the “for gain” category under Schedule 21, warranting a 30-year starting point.
Whether a 25-year starting point applied on the basis of weapon use where an accessory knew weapons would be used.
Whether “significant planning” could aggravate a “for gain” murder without double counting.
How mitigation — especially absence of intention to kill, “misguided loyalty,” limited role, age, and prior convictions — should be weighed.

The Court refused leave in all three cases, endorsing the trial judge’s categorisation and adjustments in minimum terms. In doing so, it clarifies how Schedule 21 should be applied to organised crime killings and the limited weight of certain mitigation in that context.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed all renewed applications for leave to appeal:

Ward: A leading figure in the Nottingham drug syndicate who instigated and monitored the plan. The 30-year “murder for gain” starting point was correct; the 32-year minimum term was within range and could have been higher given aggravating features (leadership, planning, previous convictions, knowledge of weapons).
Usherwood: Deeply involved in planning and execution, using her car to trap the victim and assisting the hit team’s escape and evidence destruction. Properly classified as “murder for gain” with a 30-year starting point; a 30-year minimum term (before remand credit) was not manifestly excessive.
McGuire: Provided the operational base at 121, installed and manipulated CCTV to prevent capture of the attack, and knew weapons would be used. Not “for gain” personally (motivated by safety and family loyalty), but the 25-year weapon-based starting point was correct. A downward adjustment to 20 years reflected her lesser role and lack of relevant prior convictions. The term was not excessive.

The Court reaffirmed that:

“Murder for gain” includes killings to protect or advance a criminal enterprise’s commercial interests (e.g., drug turf).
“Significant planning” can aggravate even where the 30-year “for gain” starting point applies; this is not double counting.
Lack of intent to kill carries limited mitigation when death was an obvious high risk in a planned violent attack.
For an accessory who knew weapons would be deployed, the 25-year starting point can apply notwithstanding a lesser role or personal motivation.

Factual Background

The murder occurred against a backdrop of competition between a Nottingham-based syndicate and a rival group led by McKenzie, who was expanding into The Meadows. The Nottingham syndicate, in which Ward was a significant controlling member and Usherwood closely involved, arranged to lure McKenzie to a meeting where a Manchester “hit team” would ambush him. McGuire’s involvement was less extensive but instrumental: she provided the house (121) as the operational base and managed the CCTV.

Key events included:

14 October 2021: McGuire installed CCTV at 121, which later captured the hit team’s movements in and out, including reconnaissance on bicycles obtained with the assistance of McGuire and Usherwood.
Late October 2021: The Nottingham syndicate escalated its response to the rival incursion, arranging an ambush.
10 November 2021: The target, McKenzie, did not attend; instead, Michael O’Connor arrived. McGuire turned the CCTV off moments before the attack, preventing recording of the fatal assault. Usherwood used her car (sounding the horn, manoeuvring) to corral O’Connor, while others emerged from 121 to block escape. The Manchester assailant “Mingoes” fatally stabbed O’Connor in the heart.
Post-attack: The Nottingham group facilitated the hit team’s escape and attempted to destroy evidence, including clothing and a vehicle. The CCTV was turned back on to capture scenes of CPR, creating a misleading record. Shortly after, McKenzie’s associates attempted to shoot Usherwood; the weapon jammed.

Turner J found the killing was the culmination of a deliberate plan to inflict very serious harm (not necessarily to kill) to enforce control of the local drug market. The jury convicted all three of murder as secondary parties to a joint enterprise culminating in the fatal stabbing.

The Sentences at First Instance

Applying section 322 SA 2020 and Schedule 21:

Ward: 30-year starting point (murder for gain), aggravated by leadership, planning, prior convictions, and knowing the attackers would be armed. Minimum term set at 32 years, less remand time.
Usherwood: 30-year starting point (murder for gain), with aggravation and mitigation seen to balance; minimum term fixed at 30 years, less remand time.
McGuire: 25-year starting point (knew weapons would be used); mitigation included lesser role and personal motivation (safety/family loyalty), resulting in a 20-year minimum, less remand time. The judge rejected “for gain” as her personal motive.

The judge expressly accepted there may have been no intent to kill. However, given the planned use of serious violence by an armed hit team, the risk of death was obvious.

Grounds of Appeal and the Court’s Response

Leonard Ward

Ward argued (i) insufficient weight to mitigation, (ii) double counting of planning, and (iii) overall disproportionality. The single judge refused leave on the papers, and the full court agreed. It held that the plan aimed to secure commercial advantage in organised drug dealing — squarely “for gain” — and Ward’s leadership, planning, record, and knowledge of weapons justified a term above 30 years. It was not double counting to treat planning as aggravation on top of “for gain,” and the court observed the trial judge might have gone higher.

Carla McGuire

McGuire contended the 25-year starting point was too high and that her mitigation warranted a lower term. The court rejected this, finding that although she was not motivated by financial gain, she knowingly provided the base for a planned armed attack and turned off the CCTV at the crucial moment. Her 20-year minimum reflected her lesser role, lack of relevant prior convictions, and lack of intent to kill. In the context of an organised, lethal attack to advance serious criminality, the term was well within range.

Paula Usherwood

Usherwood argued the starting point should have been 25 rather than 30 years; she relied on personal mitigation (three children, no offending since 2007) and contended her motivation was loyalty rather than gain (as with McGuire). The court disagreed, endorsing the trial judge’s finding that she was deeply embedded in the syndicate’s business and in orchestrating the ambush, including corralling the victim and assisting post-attack arrangements. Her conduct advanced the syndicate’s commercial interests; thus the “for gain” 30-year starting point was correct. The 30-year minimum (pre-credit) was within range and not excessive.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

The Court’s reasoning is anchored in the Sentencing Act 2020:

Section 322: The mandatory life sentence regime for murder and the requirement to specify a minimum term.
Schedule 21: Starting points for minimum terms, including:
- 30 years for “murder for gain” and other categories of very high seriousness.
- 25 years where the murder involves the use of a knife or other weapon brought to the scene (the “weapon” category).

The judgment does not cite external case law by name. However, the analysis reflects settled appellate principles in sentence appeals: the Court will interfere only if the judge erred in principle or the term is manifestly excessive or outside the appropriate range. The single judge’s reasons, which the Court endorsed, capture two well-established propositions:

“Lack of intention to kill” carries limited weight when death is an obvious high risk in a planned violent attack.
“Significant planning” may aggravate even where the 30-year starting point applies; this is not double counting unless the feature is already inherent in the category selected.

Legal Reasoning

1) “Murder for gain” in organised crime contexts

The Court accepted that killings done to protect or advance a criminal enterprise’s profitability — here, safeguarding drug market “turf” — are “murders for gain” under Schedule 21. The “gain” need not be a direct payment for the killing or proceeds of a robbery; it encompasses expected commercial advantages to an ongoing enterprise. This approach properly focuses on the objective of the killing within the criminal business model rather than the specific personal enrichment of each participant.

On that basis, Ward — as a leading figure — and Usherwood — as a deeply involved facilitator — both fell within the 30-year starting point. The Court explicitly rejected attempts to recast their involvement as merely “loyalty”-driven: the plan was aimed at securing the syndicate’s market position and profits, which is quintessential “gain.”

2) The 25-year “weapon” starting point and accessories

For McGuire, the trial judge selected the 25-year starting point on the basis that she knew weapons would be used, and the Court upheld that approach. Although McGuire did not wield the weapon and her role was narrower, the core rationale of the 25-year category — the heightened seriousness where a weapon is deliberately taken to and used at the scene — was engaged by her informed participation in the planned armed attack.

The decision confirms that the weapon-based starting point can properly apply to secondary parties whose knowledge and facilitation encompass the planned use of weapons, not solely to the principal who physically wields the knife or weapon.

3) Aggravation and “double counting”

Ward’s “double counting” complaint failed. “Murder for gain” does not inevitably subsume “significant planning.” Some “for gain” murders can be opportunistic; where they are carefully orchestrated, planning remains a distinct aggravating feature. The judge was entitled to add weight for planning, leadership, and prior convictions on top of the 30-year starting point.

4) Mitigation: lack of intent to kill, “misguided loyalty,” and personal circumstances

All three appellants relied to varying degrees on the absence of an intention to kill. The Court gave this limited traction: in a planned ambush by an armed team, the risk of death was “very high,” so lack of intent to kill carried little weight.

“Misguided loyalty” to family or associates (particularly in organised crime settings) seldom yields substantial reduction in minimum terms when the objective is to further or protect profitable criminality and the participant knowingly facilitates serious violence. The judge did reflect McGuire’s personal motivation (safety/family loyalty) in rejecting the “for gain” starting point for her and in making a significant downward adjustment. But for Usherwood, who was deeply enmeshed in the business and the operational plan, a claim of loyalty could not displace the commercial purpose of the enterprise.

Personal mitigation (age, family responsibilities, historical offending patterns) was considered but carried modest weight in the face of a planned, highly serious murder linked to organised crime.

5) Sentencing calibration and parity

The ultimate spread — Ward 32 years, Usherwood 30 years, McGuire 20 years — reflects nuanced role differentiation:

Leadership and instigation (Ward) justified a term above the 30-year starting point.
Deep operational involvement in a “for gain” plan (Usherwood) warranted the 30-year starting point with no reduction.
Lesser, facilitative role with non-commercial personal motive, yet knowing weapon use (McGuire) justified the 25-year starting point with a substantial downward adjustment to 20 years.

The resulting parity is rational: McGuire’s term is two-thirds of Usherwood’s, reflecting differential culpability but preserving the gravity of a knowing contribution to a deadly ambush.

Impact and Significance

The decision has important practical consequences for homicide sentencing in organised crime contexts:

Broad construction of “for gain”: Prosecutors can frame turf-war killings aimed at maintaining or enhancing a criminal enterprise’s profitability as “for gain,” engaging the 30-year starting point even where the participants are accessories and the immediate motive is coercive control rather than direct financial payment.
Accessories and the weapon category: Accessories who knowingly facilitate a planned armed attack can attract the 25-year starting point, notwithstanding that they did not wield the weapon themselves.
Planning as aggravation remains available: “Significant planning” may aggravate beyond the 30-year starting point without double counting, where planning is not inherent in the category selected.
Limited mitigation for no intent to kill: When a planned attack with weapons makes death an obvious risk, the absence of intent to kill carries little weight.
Role differentiation preserved, but floors are high: Lesser roles and personal motives may moderate the term but will rarely displace high starting points where the case features organised crime, weapon use, and planned ambush.

Overall, the judgment underscores the Court’s intolerance for lethal violence used to advance serious criminal markets and signals that minimum terms at or above 30 years will be common where “for gain” and planning converge.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandatory life sentence for murder: Every murder conviction results in a life sentence. The judge must set a “minimum term” (also called a “tariff”), which is the minimum period to be served before the offender can be considered for parole.
Schedule 21 starting points: The Sentencing Code provides indicative “starting points” (e.g., 30 years for “for gain”; 25 years for weapon use) which the judge then adjusts up or down for aggravating and mitigating factors.
“Murder for gain”: Not limited to murder-for-hire or killings during robbery. It covers murders committed to obtain or protect financial or commercial advantage — including defending a drug territory.
25-year “weapon” category: Where a knife or other weapon is taken to and used at the scene. This category can apply to participants who knowingly facilitate a planned armed attack, even if they did not personally wield the weapon.
Aggravating features vs double counting: A factor can aggravate a sentence only if it is not already inherent in the selected starting point category. Here, “significant planning” could aggravate a “for gain” murder because planning is not inherent to every such case.
Secondary party/common purpose: A person who helps or encourages a crime can be liable for the ultimate offence where they share the common intention that serious violence will be used, even if another party delivers the fatal blow.
Lack of intent to kill: Still murder if there was an intent to cause really serious harm. In planned, armed attacks, this offers limited mitigation because death is a foreseeable and obvious risk.
Single judge and renewed application: In sentence appeals, a single judge first considers leave on the papers. If refused, the applicant may “renew” the application before the full court, as happened here.
Credit for remand time: Statutory credit is given for time spent in custody pre-sentence, deducted from the minimum term.

Conclusion

Usherwood & Ors is a clear, practical application of Schedule 21 to murders committed in the service of organised crime. The Court confirms that:

Protecting or enhancing criminal business interests qualifies as “murder for gain,” engaging the 30-year starting point.
Accessories who knowingly participate in planned armed attacks may properly attract the 25-year weapon-based starting point.
“Significant planning” is a valid aggravating feature in addition to the selected starting point and is not double counted here.
Mitigation based on lack of intent to kill and “misguided loyalty” carries limited weight where death was an obvious risk.

The differentiated but robust tariffs — 32 years for the leader (Ward), 30 years for a deeply involved facilitator (Usherwood), and 20 years for a lesser participant with non-commercial personal motives (McGuire) — reflect careful, principled sentencing in a complex multi-defendant murder. The decision will guide future cases at the intersection of homicide and organised criminality, reinforcing that lethal violence deployed to protect criminal commerce will be met with the severest starting points and stringent adjustments for aggravation.