R v Karan Singh & Ors

On a reference for an unduly lenient sentence, intervention is justified only where the sentence falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. Particular weight is due to a judge who presided over the trial.

Although the five-year statutory minimum for the substantive firearm offence does not formally apply to conspiracy, it must not be disregarded where a conspiracy involving a prohibited weapon is more serious than a single substantive offence. Exceptional circumstances may justify a different result where applying that minimum would be arbitrary and disproportionate, including because the offender’s role was materially limited.

Six offenders were sentenced in the Crown Court at Basildon for firearms conspiracies arising from gang rivalry and the group’s joint possession and use of a semi-automatic firearm. Orogun and Singh were convicted of conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life. The other four offenders pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. Orogun, Singh and Adepoju also received consecutive sentences for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The Solicitor General referred all six sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The principal issues were the proper significance of the firearm-conspiracy element, the effect of the statutory minimum sentence applicable to the substantive lesser firearm offence, and the treatment of Aidoo’s separate bladed-article offence.

1. The court granted leave to refer all six cases. It increased Ladeaga’s firearms sentence from four and a half years to five years. It increased Aidoo’s firearms sentence from four years to five years and his bladed-article sentence from six to nine months, to run concurrently. The sentences imposed on Orogun, Singh, Ayanleye and Adepoju remained unaltered.

2. A sentence is unduly lenient only if it is outside the range which a reasonable sentencing judge could properly impose. The court retains a discretion whether to interfere even then. A trial judge has a particularly important margin of appreciation because of that judge’s direct knowledge and feel for the case. The 14-year starting point for Orogun’s conspiracy might have been increased to reflect its duration and several incidents, but it was not a gross error. Singh’s sentence was likewise lenient but remained within the permissible range, having regard to his youth and mitigation. The same conclusion applied to Orogun’s perverting-the-course-of-justice sentence and to Ayanleye’s sentence.

3. Section 311 of the Sentencing Act 2020 did not directly apply to a conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. However, the court accepted that Parliament’s five-year minimum for the substantive offence could not properly be ignored where the prohibited firearm conspiracy involved greater criminality than a single offence. Accordingly, Ladeaga’s four-and-a-half-year sentence and Aidoo’s four-year sentence were unduly lenient. Aidoo’s age of 18 and lack of convictions did not avoid that conclusion.

4. The court applied the exceptional-circumstances guidance that a minimum term may be displaced where it would produce an arbitrary and disproportionate sentence. Adepoju’s substantially more limited involvement in the firearms conspiracy met that standard. His three-year firearms sentence and consecutive one-year sentence for perverting the course of justice therefore stood.

5. Aidoo’s possession of the Rambo knife would ordinarily have required a consecutive sentence. In view of the severe effect of the five-year firearms sentence, however, the court exercised mercy and totality by ordering the increased nine-month knife sentence to remain concurrent. His total sentence was therefore five years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Granted leave on the Solicitor General’s reference and varied the sentences of Ladeaga and Aidoo: [2025] EWCA Crim 785.
• Crown Court at Basildon On 28 March 2025, HHJ Graham sentenced the six offenders for firearms offences and, where applicable, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and possession of a bladed article.