R v Anthony Ross

In sentencing a conspiracy to acquire prohibited firearms, the absence of actual acquisition does not automatically place harm in a lower category. Harm is assessed by risk of harm or disorder, including intended or foreseeable harm, in the factual context of the offending. Guideline examples are not exhaustive. A sophisticated, large-scale drug conspiracy and efforts to acquire automatic weapons and ammunition may justify category 1 harm where they demonstrate a high risk of serious harm, severe injury or death. Delay in charging does not inevitably require mitigation: evidence of adverse impact is needed and its significance is fact-specific. When later sentencing offences committed before an earlier sentence, the court may make a further totality allowance. An appellate court interferes only where the sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracies involving the supply of class A and class B drugs and the acquisition of prohibited automatic weapons. On 9 February 2024, the Crown Court at Liverpool imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.

With permission to appeal against sentence, he challenged the calculation of guilty plea reductions, the categorisation of harm for the firearms offence, the application of totality in light of an earlier custodial sentence, and delay in charging. The central issues were whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, and whether the judge had properly assessed firearm risk and totality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence was severe but was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
2. Minor errors in calculating the stated guilty plea reductions did not invalidate the sentence. The judge had applied the reductions, then stood back and assessed a just and proportionate sentence having regard to the appellant’s offending as a whole.
3. For the firearms offence, the assessment under the Sentencing Act 2020 was directed to risk of harm or disorder, including harm intended or foreseeably caused. The fact that the weapons had not been acquired meant that the judge could not consider any actual use, but it did not require a lower harm category. The guideline examples were not exhaustive.
4. R v Nurden [2022] EWCA Crim 913 was distinguishable. There, apart from the inference of criminal activity, there was no further evidence of intended use or timing. Here, the appellant’s significant role in a sophisticated, large-scale drug conspiracy provided the necessary context for finding a high risk of serious harm. The reasoning in R v Alpergin and Findlay [2024] EWCA Crim 313 was materially closer and supported the category 1 assessment.
5. Delay before charging can cause injustice, particularly through additional strain, but its effect is fact-specific and requires evidence of adverse impact. No such evidence was established. The judge was also entitled to consider that the earlier cannabis-production offence was not similar to the later conspiracies. Under the totality guideline, she had discretion to make a further allowance for the earlier sentence and did so after considering the overall custodial term.
6. Taking all the circumstances into account, the judge imposed a permissible sentence which addressed the entirety of the offending while respecting totality. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 15 May 2025, dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: On 9 February 2024, HHJ Brandon sentenced the appellant to an aggregate term of 15 years’ imprisonment.