Factual and Procedural Background
On 28 March 2025, in the Crown Court at The City, six defendants were sentenced by Judge Graham for firearms offences involving conspiracies to possess firearms with intent to endanger life or cause fear of violence. Two defendants, referred to as Defendant A and Defendant B, were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life. The remaining four defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. Additional sentences were imposed for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and possession of a bladed article in one case. The Solicitor General applied for leave to refer all sentences as unduly lenient, citing the serious nature of the offences, the gang rivalry context, and the failure to properly apply sentencing guidelines and statutory minimums.
Between October and November 2023, the defendants, members and associates of a gang based in South East London, obtained a semi-automatic firearm and live ammunition, which they used in a series of violent incidents including shootings, a robbery, and threats. Evidence was gathered from recovered ammunition, CCTV, and forensic examination of mobile phones, linking the defendants to the firearm and to acts of violence against a rival gang. One victim was shot and sustained serious injury. The defendants also engaged in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by attempting to induce a key witness to withdraw support for the prosecution through cash and gifts and by creating fake social media accounts to mislead the investigation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentences imposed on the defendants for conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life or cause fear of violence were unduly lenient.
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to apply an uplift to reflect the multiplicity and conspiracy nature of the offences.
- Whether the statutory minimum custodial sentences for possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence should be applied to conspiracy charges.
- Whether consecutive sentences should have been imposed for possession of a bladed article in conjunction with firearms offences.
- Whether insufficient weight was given to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in sentencing.
Arguments of the Parties
Solicitor General's Arguments
- The offences involved gang rivalry with a grave risk to the public, including discharge of live ammunition and multiple violent acts.
- The sentencing judge failed to apply uplifts for multiple acts and the conspiracy element, using starting points appropriate only for single offences.
- The statutory minimum sentence applicable to substantive firearm offences should inform sentencing for conspiracy charges to avoid undermining legislative intent.
- Consecutive sentences should have been considered for possession of a bladed article to reflect its seriousness.
- Insufficient weight was given to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, which involved attempts to obstruct prosecution through bribery and deception.
Defendants' Arguments
- For Defendants A and B, it was argued that increasing the sentence above the guideline starting point for a single offence due to conspiracy was inappropriate, as the guideline already accounts for conspiracy features such as planning and group activity.
- It was submitted that there was no clear evidence of multiple discharges of the firearm in public beyond the known shooting incident.
- For one defendant, it was contended that the statutory minimum sentence point was difficult but the sentence should not be increased beyond the starting point of five years.
- Mitigation was submitted for certain defendants based on youth, lack of previous convictions, and personal circumstances.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Attorney General's Ref no. 43 (Bennett and Wilkinson) [2009] EWCA Crim 1925 |
Emphasizes the gravity of gun crime and the need for deterrent and punitive sentences to protect the public. |
The court referenced this precedent to underline the serious societal harm caused by firearms offences and the importance of public protection in sentencing. |
| Attorney-General's Reference (No. 4 of 1989) (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (S.) 517 |
Defines the threshold for sentences being unduly lenient as those outside the range reasonably open to a sentencing judge, emphasizing sentencing as an art and the discretion of judges. |
The court applied this principle to assess whether the sentences were grossly inadequate or within a reasonable range, recognizing the trial judge's advantage in assessing the case. |
| Attorney General's Reference (No. 132 of 2001) (R. v. Johnson) [2002] EWCA Crim 1418 |
Purpose of s 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 is to avoid gross sentencing error and maintain public confidence in sentencing norms. |
The court used this precedent to frame the context for reviewing alleged unduly lenient sentences and the importance of preserving public confidence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully examined the nature of the conspiracies involving possession and use of a semi-automatic firearm by a gang engaged in violent rivalry. It accepted that the offences involved high culpability and serious harm, categorizing them as category 2A offences under the relevant sentencing guidelines. The court acknowledged the Solicitor General's submission that the sentencing judge did not apply uplifts for multiple acts or conspiracy, nor did the judge apply statutory minimum sentences for the conspiracy offences, which the court found appropriate to consider.
However, the court also noted that the point regarding uplifts for conspiracy had not been advanced at the sentencing hearing, and the trial judge was entitled to sentence within a reasonable range. The court recognized the discretion of the sentencing judge, especially given the judge's direct involvement in the trial and assessment of evidence and mitigation.
Regarding the statutory minimum sentences, the court agreed that although these apply to substantive offences, they should effectively inform sentencing for conspiracy charges to avoid undermining legislative intent, particularly for the defendants charged with possession with intent to cause fear of violence.
For specific defendants, the court considered individual circumstances such as age, previous convictions, role in the conspiracy, and personal mitigation. It found some sentences on the lenient side but not grossly inadequate, except for two defendants whose sentences were adjusted to reflect statutory minimums and the seriousness of possession of a bladed article.
Holding and Implications
The court granted leave to refer all six cases. It made the following decisions:
- For Defendant C, the sentence of 4½ years was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 5 years.
- For Defendant D, the sentences of 4 years on the firearms charge and 6 months concurrent on the bladed article charge were quashed and substituted with 5 years on the firearms charge and 9 months concurrent on the bladed article charge.
- The sentences for Defendants A, B, E, and F were upheld without alteration.
The court's ruling thus resulted in modest increases to sentences for two defendants to reflect statutory minimums and offence seriousness, while affirming that the remaining sentences were within a reasonable range and not unduly lenient. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirmed the application of existing sentencing principles and the discretion afforded to trial judges, particularly in complex conspiracy cases involving serious firearms offences.