ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BASILDON
HIS HONOUR JUDGE GRAHAM
Reference by the Solicitor General under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BUTCHER
and
HIS HONOUR JUDGE MARKS KC, COMMON SERJEANT OF LONDON
____________________
THE KING |
||
- and – |
||
KARAN SINGH, STEPHEN AYANLEYE, DAFE OROGUN, BRYAN AIDOO, ROQEEB LADEAGA and GABRIEL ADEPOJU |
____________________
Mr M Jones for the Offender Singh
Mr R Furlong for the Offender Orogun
Mr J Wing for the Offender Ayanleye
Mr B Hale for the Offender Aidoo
Mr D Thomas for the Offender Ladeaga
Mr L Loughlin for the Offender Adepoju
Hearing date: 20 June 2025
Judgment Approved
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Bean:
(a) These offences were committed against the backdrop of gang rivalry. The conspiracies carried a grave risk to the general public and involved the discharging of live ammunition, a ride-out onto rival territory, and the use of the firearm to threaten, although not discharged. These offenders conspired to endanger lives and cause fear, by several acts of violence. The starting point identified on the guidelines was for a single offence. No uplift was applied to reflect the multiple acts planned within these conspiracies, or to reflect that these were conspiracies, rather than a single substantive offence;
(b) Additionally, having identified the presence of several aggravating features, no uplift was applied to the starting point to reflect those aggravating features;
(c) While the minimum sentence for possession of a firearm did not apply to these conspiracies, regard should have been had to the minimum terms in sentencing the offenders facing Count 2 had they faced a substantive count;
(d) A consecutive sentence should have been considered for Bryan Aidoo, to reflect the possession of the bladed article;
(e) Insufficient weight was given to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Facts – in summary:
Basis for sentence
Perverting the course of justice
Categorisation of the firearms offences
"I am not totally persuaded that this is a category 1 case. There is no sufficient medical evidence or evidence from Mr Jombola himself to say that this is severe harm and therefore I am prepared to accept that I should deal with this as a category 2 harm case".
Seriousness of gun crime
"The gravity of gun crime cannot be exaggerated. Guns kill and maim, terrorise and intimidate. That is why criminals want them: that is why they use them: and that is why they organise their importation and manufacture, supply and distribution. Sentencing courts must address the fact that too many lethal weapons are too readily available: too many are carried: too many are used, always with devastating effect on individual victims and with insidious corrosive impact on the wellbeing of the local community.… as a matter of sentencing reality, whenever a gun is made available for use as well as when a gun is used, public protection is the paramount consideration. Deterrent and punitive sentences are required and should be imposed."
Approach to references on sentence
"The first thing to be observed is that it is implicit in the section that this Court may only increase sentences which it concludes were unduly lenient. It cannot, we are confident, have been the intention of Parliament to subject defendants to the risk of having their sentences increased—with all the anxiety that that naturally gives rise to—merely because in the opinion of this Court the sentence was less than this Court would have imposed. A sentence is unduly lenient, we would hold, where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate…………. However it must always be remembered that sentencing is an art rather than a science; that the trial judge is particularly well placed to assess the weight to be given to various competing considerations; and that leniency is not in itself a vice. That mercy should season justice is a proposition as soundly based in law as it is in literature. The second thing to be observed about the section is that, even where it considers that the sentence was unduly lenient, this Court has a discretion as to whether to exercise its powers."
Orogun and Singh
Ladeaga, Ayanleye, Aidoo and Adepoju
Conclusion