Moran, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 16 July 2021, in the Crown Court at Nottingham before His Honour Judge Rafferty KC, the Appellant pleaded guilty to three offences: Conspiracy to Transfer a Prohibited Weapon (Count 1), Conspiracy to Supply a Controlled Drug of Class A (Count 2), and Converting Criminal Property (Count 26). On 14 August 2024, the Appellant was sentenced by His Honour Judge Michael Auty KC to a total of 24 years' imprisonment, comprising 16 years for Count 2, 8 years consecutively for Count 1, and 4 years concurrently for Count 26.

The offending related to the Appellant's leadership of an Organised Crime Group (OCG) based in Nottingham, primarily engaged in large scale Class A drug supply, with links to a Manchester-based OCG. Investigations revealed firearms and ammunition sourced from Manchester, drug trafficking activities involving multiple couriers and encrypted communications, and money laundering operations. The Appellant had a significant criminal history spanning over two decades.

The Appellant appealed against the sentence by leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting points for sentencing on Counts 1 (Conspiracy to Transfer a Prohibited Weapon) and 2 (Conspiracy to Supply Class A Drugs) were too high;
2. Whether the sentencing structure erred in imposing consecutive sentences for Counts 1 and 2 instead of concurrent sentences with appropriate adjustments;
3. Whether the overall sentence of 24 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge took too high a starting point for Counts 1 and 2, particularly given the limited involvement with incomplete and partly non-functional weapons for Count 1.
• The sentences for Counts 1 and 2 should have been concurrent rather than consecutive, with adjustments to reflect the related nature of the offences and the principle of totality.
• The overall 24-year sentence was excessive considering the circumstances, including early guilty pleas and delays due to extradition and the Covid pandemic.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offending, involving leadership of an Organised Crime Group engaged in large-scale Class A drug supply, firearms offences, and money laundering.

Regarding the starting point for Count 1, the court rejected the Appellant’s submission that the sentence was too high despite some weapons being incomplete, noting that the shotgun was operative and the pistol was capable of firing with improvised means. The multiplicity of weapons justified the sentence level.

For Count 2, the court found the 23-year starting point appropriate for a serious, high-level conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, particularly given the Appellant’s leading role.

On the sentencing structure, the court held that the firearms offences were distinct and serious, warranting consecutive sentences rather than concurrency. The court emphasized that the principle of totality required adjustment to the overall sentence, which was reflected in reductions: the sentence for Count 1 was reduced from 15 to 12 years, Count 26 was reduced and ordered concurrent, and an uplift was applied to Count 2 resulting in a total of 36 years before credit.

Finally, the court gave full one-third credit for the Appellant’s early guilty pleas, reducing the total sentence to 24 years. The court concluded that the sentence was just, proportionate, and not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the sentencing judge’s approach, confirming the appropriateness of the starting points, the use of consecutive sentences for the firearms and drug offences, and the application of the totality principle with credit for early guilty pleas. The decision directly affects the Appellant by affirming the 24-year custodial sentence. No new legal precedent was established.