Stephenson & Ors, R v

Stephenson & Ors, R v

The sentences imposed by the trial judge were unduly lenient given the seriousness, organisation, and scale of the criminal enterprise, the supply of lethal weapons and ammunition, and the statutory framework. The Court of Appeal substituted higher sentences for all offenders except Mattu, reflecting the need for deterrence and proper gradation according to role and aggravating factors.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Nosakhere Stephenson; Respondent: Sundish Singh Nazran; Respondent: Louis Junior McDermott; Respondent: Theodore Junior Wiggan; Respondent: Rowan Gul; Respondent: Fitzroy Ducram; Respondent: Joga Singh Mattu; Respondent: Mohammed Selu Miah; Respondent: Amar Ghalib; Respondent: Joynal Abdin; Respondent: Ifran Hussain; Respondent: Usman Hussain; Respondent: Mohammed Fedar; Respondent: Janed Mohammed; Respondent: Clinton Officer; Respondent: Jamal Shaka Smith; Respondent: Darren Mentore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Attorney General References Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Sentences quashed and substituted with higher sentences for all offenders except Mattu; leave to appeal refused for disparity claims.
Legal Topics
Firearms Offences, Sentencing, Conspiracy, Attorney General Reference, Unduly Lenient Sentences
Criminal Law Firearms Offences Sentencing Conspiracy Attorney General Reference Unduly Lenient Sentences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Nosakhere Stephenson

Respondent

Sundish Singh Nazran

Respondent

Louis Junior McDermott

Respondent

Theodore Junior Wiggan

Respondent

Rowan Gul

Respondent

Fitzroy Ducram

Respondent

Joga Singh Mattu

Respondent

Mohammed Selu Miah

Respondent

Amar Ghalib

Respondent

Joynal Abdin

Respondent

Ifran Hussain

Respondent

Usman Hussain

Respondent

Mohammed Fedar

Respondent

Janed Mohammed

Respondent

Clinton Officer

Respondent

Jamal Shaka Smith

Respondent

Darren Mentore

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Attorney General References Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentencing for conspiracy to transfer prohibited weapons and ammunition
  2. 2 Whether sentences imposed were unduly lenient
  3. 3 Application of statutory minimums and maximums for firearms offences

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed by the trial judge were unduly lenient given the seriousness, organisation, and scale of the criminal enterprise, the supply of lethal weapons and ammunition, and the statutory framework. The Court of Appeal substituted higher sentences for all offenders except Mattu, reflecting the need for deterrence and proper gradation according to role and aggravating factors.

Court Disposition

Sentences quashed and substituted with higher sentences for all offenders except Mattu; leave to appeal refused for disparity claims.

Orders

  • Stephenson: sentence increased from 16½ years to 22 years
  • Nazran: sentence increased from 13 years to 17 years 3 months