R v Alexander Ramsey

In sentencing for serious firearms offending, a judge who heard the trial may assess the offender’s role from the whole of the evidence. Directing vulnerable associates to move a lethal weapon can justify finding a leading role in group activity and an upward movement within the applicable guideline range.

A sentence within that range will not be manifestly excessive merely because mitigation was advanced. Where mandatory minimum terms were omitted, the Court of Appeal may substitute concurrent terms under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 11(3), if the appellant is not more severely dealt with overall.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Harrow Crown Court to transferring a prohibited weapon. Following trial, he was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life, possessing a prohibited firearm, and possessing ammunition.

The firearm was a loaded, working submachine gun. The prosecution evidence showed that the applicant arranged its transfer and directed two women involved in moving it. On 17 June 2022 he received concurrent sentences of 16 years’ imprisonment on the principal counts, with no separate penalty recorded on two possession counts.

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the issues were whether the guideline categorisation and upward adjustment made the sentence manifestly excessive, and whether the court could correct the omission of mandatory minimum sentences.

1. The court granted leave and varied the sentencing order. It rejected the challenge to the 16-year sentence, but substituted concurrent five-year sentences on the two counts for which no separate penalty had been imposed. The total sentence remained 16 years’ imprisonment.

2. The offending was properly treated as category 2 because there was a high risk of death or severe physical or psychological harm. The sentencing judge had heard the trial and was entitled to find that the applicant had a leading role in group activity. He had arranged the movement of a lethal weapon, directed two women, and identified that both were vulnerable. Those findings justified categorisation as category 2A under the guideline.

3. For category 2A, the starting point was 14 years and the range was 11 to 17 years. The two-year increase reflected the aggravating feature of involving two vulnerable women. As the judge placed the criminality on the principal concurrent counts, the 16-year sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

4. Counts 3 and 4 carried mandatory minimum sentences of five years unless exceptional circumstances existed. Under section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court could correct the omission because concurrent five-year terms would not make the applicant more severely dealt with on appeal. The substituted terms were concurrent with the existing 16-year term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a renewed application following refusal by a single judge, the court granted leave to appeal against sentence and varied the sentencing order in R v Alexander Ramsey, [2023] EWCA Crim 64. The challenge to the 16-year term was rejected.
• Crown Court at Harrow: The applicant pleaded guilty on 25 March 2022 to transferring a prohibited weapon, was convicted after trial on the remaining counts on 20 May 2022, and was sentenced on 17 June 2022.