Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, a 24-year-old male of previous good character, was sentenced on 9 February 2021 at the Crown Court at Leeds to a total of nine years' imprisonment. On 10 November 2020, the Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a class A controlled drug with intent to supply contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (count 6), receiving a four-year sentence. Following trial on 22 January 2021, the Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence (count 1) and conspiracy to possess ammunition without a firearms certificate (count 2), both contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The sentences for counts 1 and 2 were concurrent, and the sentence for count 6 was to run consecutively to count 1, resulting in a total of nine years' imprisonment.
The Appellant’s co-accused included Defendant A, who pleaded guilty to counts 1, 2, and possession of a prohibited firearm (count 3), receiving an 11-year sentence, and Defendant B, convicted on counts 1, 2, and 3 and pleading guilty to counts 4 and 5, sentenced to eight years and four months. Two other co-accused were acquitted of counts 1 and 2.
On 18 May 2020, during the first national lockdown, the Appellant and co-accused travelled from various locations to a meeting point in Normanton before proceeding to Castleford. The Appellant collected a handgun and ammunition from Defendant B before travelling. Police stopped and searched the Appellant’s vehicle in Castleford, recovering a Grand Power semi-automatic handgun with a selector switch and ammunition capable of use in the firearm. Two encrypted mobile phones were also found with Defendant A. Further firearms and ammunition were found at Defendant B’s residence, along with controlled drugs and related items at both the Appellant’s and Defendant B’s addresses, including around two ounces of cocaine at the Appellant’s home, which he admitted holding on behalf of Defendant A.
Police had surveilled the group for two to three weeks prior, observing frequent meetings and travel together. Evidence showed the Appellant was actively involved in the supply of class A drugs, acting as a trusted assistant to Defendant A, who ran a significant drugs business. The Appellant’s role included driving, collecting money, drugs, and samples, and delivering them locally and nationally.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentences imposed on the Appellant for conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, conspiracy to possess ammunition without a firearms certificate, and possession of class A drugs with intent to supply were manifestly excessive.
- Whether the sentencing judge properly accounted for the Appellant’s personal mitigation, including previous good character and first-time offender status.
- Whether the principle of totality was correctly applied in aggregating the sentences.
- Whether there was unjust disparity between the Appellant’s sentence and those of co-defendants, particularly Defendant A.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The individual sentences for each offence were too long and the overall sentence was excessive.
- The sentencing judge failed adequately to consider the Appellant’s personal mitigation, including his previous good character and first-time offender status.
- The principle of totality was not properly applied, resulting in an unduly harsh aggregate sentence.
- There was an unjustifiable disparity between the Appellant’s sentence and that of Defendant A, especially regarding the firearm offence, given the Appellant’s limited role and lesser involvement.
- The Appellant was not involved in any actual violence or planning of violent incidents and was merely a courier.
- The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on prison conditions and threats to the Appellant and his family should have been considered more fully.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Fawcett [1983] 5 Cr.App.R (S) 158 |
Principle that disparity of sentences between co-defendants may justify reduction if no differentiating factors exist. |
The court noted this precedent but distinguished the Appellant’s and Defendant A’s roles as not identical or very similar, thus disparity was not unfair in this case. |
| R v Tate [2006] EWCA Crim 2373 |
Lenience to one defendant should not necessarily reduce sentence of co-defendant. |
Supported the court’s approach to reject parity-based reduction where co-defendants differ significantly in culpability. |
| R v O'Brien and others v Independent Assessor [2007] 2 AC 312 at [26] |
Similar to Tate, addresses sentencing disparity and lenience principles. |
Reinforced court’s reasoning regarding disparity and sentencing differentiation. |
| R v Anandarajah (Jabinthan) [2012] EWCA Crim 1689 at [16] |
Further authority on sentencing disparity and individual culpability. |
Applied to support the view that differences in roles justify sentencing differences. |
| R v Avis [1998] 1 Cr.App.R 420 at 424 |
Considerations in sentencing firearm offences, including firearm functionality, lawful use, and intention. |
The court applied the principles to assess the firearm’s nature, the Appellant’s knowledge, and intent, supporting the sentence imposed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court recognized the sentencing judge’s advantageous position, having presided over the trial and being familiar with the evidence and seriousness of the offences. It acknowledged the Appellant’s role as a courier and assistant within a serious organised drugs enterprise involving firearms.
Regarding parity, the court emphasized that the Appellant’s and Defendant A’s roles were materially different, justifying the sentencing disparity. It considered the firearm offence as a Category 2B case under the Firearms Guideline, with a starting point of four years and a range of three to six years. The court found that the five-year sentence on count 1 was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive, especially given the concurrent sentence on count 2.
For the drug offence (count 6), the court accepted the sentencing judge’s placement of the offence at the top of Category 3 or the bottom of Category 2 under the Drugs Guideline, with a starting point of six years and six months before reductions. It noted the aggravating presence of a knife and the Appellant’s significant role in the supply chain. The four-year sentence after plea credit and totality adjustments was deemed appropriate.
The court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the Appellant’s mitigation, including youth, good character, first-time offender status, threats to family, positive prison engagement, and COVID-19 effects. However, the court stressed the seriousness of the combined firearms and drug offences, warranting a substantial custodial sentence.
Overall, the court concluded the total sentence of nine years was severe but not manifestly excessive. It fell within the relevant Sentencing Council Guidelines and reflected a balanced consideration of all factors, including totality and mitigation.
Holding and Implications
The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.
The court upheld the total sentence of nine years' imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court. The decision confirms that, in cases involving combined serious firearms and drug offences, significant custodial sentences are appropriate even where the appellant is a first-time offender with mitigating factors. The ruling clarifies that sentencing disparities among co-defendants are permissible where roles and culpability differ materially. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the proper application of existing Sentencing Council Guidelines and relevant case law.