R v Stephen Wills

Where drug offending is sentenced alongside possession of a prohibited firearm carrying a mandatory minimum term, the firearm offence ordinarily requires separate recognition. A concurrent sentence which removes the practical effect of that minimum term undermines the statutory scheme.

The totality principle may justify a substantial reduction so that the overall sentence is just and proportionate. However, where totality has already been reflected in the sentences for the distinct offending, it does not require a further reduction that neutralises the separate mandatory firearm sentence.

The Solicitor General referred the respondent’s sentence as allegedly unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. At Exeter Crown Court, the respondent received concurrent sentences producing a total of nine years’ imprisonment for linked conspiracies to supply cocaine and cannabis, possession of cocaine with intent to supply, and possession of a prohibited firearm.

The firearm was a functional prohibited semi-automatic rifle. The respondent was a prohibited person and possessed it while involved in three drug-supply conspiracies. The sentencing judge treated the five-year firearm sentence as concurrent, having reduced the overall sentence for totality and delay.

The central issue was whether concurrency improperly undermined the mandatory minimum term for the firearm offence and, if so, what overall sentence was just and proportionate.

1. The reference succeeded. The court granted leave and held that the nine-year total sentence was unduly lenient because the five-year sentence for the prohibited firearm should have been consecutive to the sentence for the drug offending.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to apply totality and to reduce the aggregate sentence to achieve a just and proportionate result. The four-year reduction could be viewed as substantial or merciful, but it was not itself unduly lenient. The complaint about the discount for the late guilty pleas was academic because the relevant sentences were concurrent.

3. The firearm sentence nevertheless required separate recognition. The Totality Guideline states that consecutive sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where drug dealing is sentenced with possession of a firearm, because the firearm offence is not intrinsic to the drug offence. It also identifies the need to preserve the effect of a statutory minimum term for possession of a prohibited weapon.

4. Making the five-year firearm sentence concurrent undermined Parliament’s mandatory minimum. The respondent’s asserted hunting purpose did not justify concurrency. He lacked a licence, remained a prohibited person, and possessed the weapon while involved in serious organised drug supply. Those circumstances created a significant risk of misuse.

5. There was no basis for a further totality reduction after imposing five years for the firearm offence and a consecutive nine years for the other offending. A total of fourteen years’ imprisonment was just and proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a sentence reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave and allowed the reference: [2025] EWCA Crim 811.

• Crown Court at Exeter: On 13 March 2025, the judge imposed concurrent sentences resulting in a total of nine years’ imprisonment.