R v Joshua Robert Curley Mullings

When sentencing a conspiracy to possess a firearm by reference to the guideline for the substantive offence, harm is assessed in its full context. The assessment is not confined to the immediate circumstances in which police intercept the weapon. A firearm intended to facilitate Class A drug dealing may present a high risk of harm even though it never reaches the offender.

A sentencing judge may revise a provisional case-management view after considering the parties’ submissions and the trial evidence. Personal mitigation, delay and pandemic custody conditions must be considered, but may warrant only a slight reduction where offending is grave and the sentence is necessarily long.

The applicant was convicted after trial in the Crown Court at Birmingham of conspiracy to possess a firearm, two conspiracies to supply Class A drugs, and possession of criminal property. He received a total sentence of 15 years and six months’ imprisonment.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal sentence after refusal by a single judge. He challenged the category 1 harm assessment for the firearm conspiracy, the finding that he had played a leading role in the drug enterprise, and the weight given to personal mitigation, delay and custody during the pandemic.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. Under Sentencing Code, section 59(1), the judge was required to follow the relevant guideline unless that would be contrary to the interests of justice.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess the firearm conspiracy as category 1 harm. The guideline required an assessment of the risk of harm or disorder and did not confine that assessment to immediate risk. The intended use of the firearm to support Class A drug dealing created a high risk of harm. Police interception before the firearm reached the applicant did not remove that risk. A snapshot of the time at which a weapon was found is not an accurate method of assessing harm, consistently with R v Dean [2022] 1 Cr App R (S) 51.
3. The judge’s earlier indication at a further case-management hearing was provisional and did not preclude a later finding of a leading role. The final conclusion was justified by the applicant’s organisation and direction of commercial-scale drug supply, his use of others in the supply chain while distancing himself from possession, his influence and links, the purity and quantity of the drugs, and his expected financial gain.
4. The sentencing judge had taken account of the applicant’s family circumstances, the delay before sentence, and custody during the pandemic. In light of the serious and repeated offending, the previous convictions, and the fact that a lengthy sentence was always foreseeable, those matters did not require a greater reduction. The slight reduction for pandemic conditions was consistent with the guidance in R v Manning.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal sentence refused: [2023] EWCA Crim 1270.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: following trial, the applicant was convicted on 16 March 2021 and, on 6 February 2023, was sentenced to a total of 15 years and six months’ imprisonment.