R v Stephen Wills

His Majesty’s Solicitor General seeks leave to refer a sentence which the Solicitor General considers to be unduly lenient to this Court. We grant leave.

The respondent, Mr Wills, was charged in two separate but linked indictments. The first indictment preferred arose from Operation Lapping and concerned Class A drug offences. Mr Wills was convicted after trial in December 2024 of a conspiracy to supply Class A drugs being cocaine and possession with intent to supply the cocaine.

After his conviction on the first indictment, Mr Wills pleaded guilty to the second indictment and that arose from Operation Hotdog and concerned both a conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and a conspiracy to supply Class B drugs and a firearms offence. On 13 March 2025 in the Crown Court at Exeter, Mr Wills was sentenced on the first indictment, the Operation Lapping indictment, to 9 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (cocaine) and 4 years concurrent for possession with intent to supply the cocaine. On the second indictment, Mr Wills was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment concurrent for the second conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and for conspiracy to supply cannabis he was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment concurrent and for possession of a prohibited firearm he was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment which was also concurrent. This gave an overall sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment.

It is submitted by Mr Brocklehurst, on behalf of the Solicitor General, that the learned judge fell into error when he made the sentence to be imposed in respect of the firearms offence concurrent to the lead sentence imposed for the drug offences, and that the judge was wrong to conclude that the sentence to be imposed for all offences needed to be reduced by 4 years to one of 9 years’ custody in order to make the total sentence a just and proportionate one. He also complains about the discount given for the late pleas of guilty on the Operation Hotdog indictment, although he recognised in oral submissions that this point was in many respects slightly academic because of the concurrent nature of the sentencing and the way in which the sentences were structured.

Ms Smith, on behalf of Mr Wills, submits that the sentencing exercise required consideration of a much broader factual matrix involving the sentences imposed on multiple other parties and reference was made to some of those other parties in the oral submissions. The judge had heard all of the evidence at trial and had sentenced other co-defendants and arrived at a sentence which was just and proportionate and reflected the overall criminality. Overall, if some might consider it lenient it was not one which could fairly be described as unduly lenient.

Operation Lapping was a police investigation into an Albanian organised criminal gang, supplying quantities of high purity cocaine from London groups to southern England including Exeter and Brixam. Mr Wills was part of the Exeter group which included co-defendants Mr Richard Armitage, Mr Leum Barrett and Mr Jack Robson. This group operated at the wholesale level. Mr Armitage acted as an intermediary between the Organised Crime Group and the Exeter and Brixham groups. There were drug deliveries on 4 October 2019. Mr Wills was involved in a cocaine delivery at a Chagford address. Surveillance observed interactions between members of the Organised Crime Group and the Exeter group. On 15 October 2019, Mr Barrett collected a bag from the Old Quarry, which was a property rented by Mr Wills. Mr Wills was in communication but not observed directly handling drugs. On 23 October 2019 another delivery occurred but Mr Wills was not seen or linked by any phone activity to that one. On 28 November 2019 Mr Lleshi, who was a member of the Organised Crime Group, was arrested in Bristol with 3 kilograms of 86 per cent purity cocaine.

On 6 October 2020, Mr Wills was arrested at the Old Quarry, which was the farmhouse he was renting. Police found 218 kilograms of 39 per cent pure cocaine in a car he had access to, his DNA was on the packaging. Mr Barrett was arrested with similar drugs. Mr Wills was already under investigation and had already been arrested in relation to Operation Hotdog.

The second indictment was Operation Hotdog but the offending occurred first in time. This operation investigated criminal activity at the Old Quarry and involved Mr Wills, Ms Clark and Mr Johnson and 2 other co-defendants. On 1 May 2020 Mr Wills was stopped in a car in which he was travelling with his wife and children. In his vehicle officers found ammunition, gunpowder, mini scales and a mobile phone. Mr Wills was prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition due to a prior conviction and sentence.

After his arrest on 1 May his wife contacted Mr Armitage and Mr Wills’ co-defendants on the indictment as individuals involved in the drugs operations with Mr Wills. The co-defendants went to the Old Quarry but the police were already there. The police searches at the Old Quarry uncovered: cocaine; there was over 1 kilogram in three vacuum-packed bags with purities up to 88 per cent; and cannabis, there was 1.2 kilograms in bags plus 47 cannabis plants in various stage of growth. There was drugs paraphernalia, scales, packaging, reloading, press and purity kits. So far as particularly relevant to this Reference, there was also located firearms including a prohibited M1 semi-automatic rifle, two other rifles, a shotgun and ammunition, all found in a shipping container near Mr Wills’s home. Keys to the cabinet were in his vehicle and there were also located DNA and fingerprints linking Mr Wills and a co-defendant to the drugs and the equipment. There were electricity meters which had been tampered with.

There was additional evidence. A phone which had links to Mr Wills contained photographs of cannabis and packaging and his home contained ammunition, a cocaine purity leaflet and some £6,450 in cash. The M1 rifle was tested and found to be a fully functional prohibited firearm under UK law.

So far as interviews were concerned, on 1 May 2020, after his first arrest in relation to Operation Hotdog, Mr Wills was interviewed by police. He denied involvement with drugs or firearms, claiming he was in South Brent to see lambs and had bought a die reloading kit for a friend. He was released under investigation which is why he was at liberty before his arrest on 6 October 2020, when arrested in relation to Operation Lapping. So far as his interviews in relation to Operation Lapping was concerned, Mr Wills denied involvement and gave “no comment” responses.

So far as the co-defendants were concerned, Ms Clark gave mostly “no comment” interviews; Mr Johnson claimed he was coerced into cannabis production by threats from Mr Armitage and Mr Wills. He was later accused of having fabricated threatening messages.

For Operation Lapping, legal proceedings were delayed due to Covid-19 and other issues and Mr Wills was, as already noted, eventually tried and found guilty on 6 December 2024. So far as his co-defendants are concerned, Mr Armitage was sentenced to 8 years’ custody for count 1 on indictment 1, and that was after a 20 per cent discount for his plea and personal mitigation. He received a consecutive sentence of 1 year for breach of a serious crime prevention order, giving an overall sentence of 9 years and he has been granted leave to appeal but the appeal, so far as the papers indicate, has not yet been heard. Mr Barrett was sentenced to 5 years’ custody on count 1 on the first indictment. Mr Barrett was assessed to have a role at the lower end of significant role and at the upper end of lesser role. He had personal mitigation and relatively few previous convictions and was given a concurrent sentence of 3 years for possession of cocaine with intent to supply and had an overall sentence of 5 years.

Proceedings on the second indictment were that the indictment was put to Mr Wills on 1 December 2023. He entered not guilty pleas. No trial date appears to have been set. By 11 September 2024, the trial date had been fixed for 10 February 2025. After conviction on 6 December, Mr Wills gave an indication to change pleas to guilty on the indictment 2, and that appears to have been communicated to the prosecution by 18 December 2024 at the latest. Mr Wills then returned to court for a hearing on 16 January to indicate whether he wanted to change his pleas and, at some point, prior to 11 December, that trial had been refixed for 5 January 2026. Co-defendants await trial on that.

Mr Wills was re-arraigned on 16 January and entered the guilty pleas.

Mr Wills was aged 31 years at the start of the offending the subject of these two indictments and he is now aged 36. He has 79 offences arising from 33 separate convictions. Those convictions began when he was a juvenile. None of those sentences as a juvenile resulted in detention. As an adult, his offending continued with low-level violence, public disorder, criminal damage, theft, handling, burglary from non-dwelling premises, driving offences, hunting offences, firearm offences, perverting the course of justice and various breaches. Some of these matters resulted in sentences of immediate custody with the longest sentence being imposed, one of 11 months’ custody for an affray in 2012. Mr Wills does not possess a firearm certificate and is a prohibited person as defined by section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968. This prohibition arises from a previous conviction in 2018 for fraud and perverting the course of justice which resulted in a sentence of more than 3 months’ custody. Mr Wills was therefore prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition for 5 years from 2019 and on 4 October 2021, Mr Wills had been convicted of three offences relating to possession of an air rifle and ammunition at his home following the searches that took place on 1 May 2020. He was subsequently sentenced to 6 months’ custody suspended for 2 years for those matters.

When sentencing, the judge had notes from prosecution and those submitted on behalf of Mr Wills. There were no character references or basis of plea or reports.

There were technical difficulties during the hearing, and it is understood that no recording was made of the proceedings in which Mr Wills was sentenced. Notes were taken by the prosecution, and they indicate that the judge took the following approach. In respect of the first indictment, which was the Lapping indictment (later in time), the judge found that Mr Wills had played the role of a trusted warehouseman, storing the cocaine for the group and in doing so had placed his family at risk. This placed him in a significant role and category 2 for harm. The other offences, including the firearm offences were to be viewed as aggravating features. The firearm appeared not to have been possessed with an intention to use it or involve it in crime. The principles of totality were applied. On indictment 1, count 1 warranted a term of 8 years’ custody with 4 years concurrent for count 2, before taking into account a reduction for delay and on indictment 2, count 1 warranted a term of 8 years with 4½ for count 2 to run concurrently and 5 years for count 7. The judge then initially made the representative sentence for each indictment consecutive resulting in a total sentence of some 16 years. The judge found that the totality required a reduction to 12 years to reflect the criminality involved with a further reduction of 1 year for delay, making a total sentence of 11 years. The judge then considered that he needed to reflect a 25 per cent discount for plea on indictment 2 and that produced a total sentence of 6 years rather than 8 years and therefore a combined total sentence of 14 years rather than 16. The judge considered 14 years too long and once again reduced the total, this time to 9 years being again 4 years for totality and 1 year for delay. It might be noted that the judge dealt with totality before reduction for guilty pleas, but in this case it did not affect the overall sentences.

Although the learned judge had thus far expressed the total in terms of total sentence on the indictment 2, running consecutively to a total sentence on indictment 1, he concluded his remarks by stating he imposed 9 years’ custody on count 1 of indictment 1 as the lead sentence, with all other counts in the operations to run concurrent to it. It is expressed in those terms on the order for imprisonment. The judge found no exceptional circumstances which would have allowed him to reduce the firearm sentence below the statutory minimum, he did however express a view that the circumstances in which the firearm was possessed allowed the court to make the sentence for the firearm concurrent. That seems to have been a cryptic reference to the fact the judge found that the firearm was possessed for hunting purposes.

Since sentencing Mr Wills has been in prison. He has a good report from His Majesty Prison Channings Wood, showing positive engagement. He has enhanced status and is acting as a mentor. It is apparent from all the materials available to the court that Mr Wills (whenever he is released) has the prospect of making a substantial contribution to society. The court has to apply the relevant guidelines. The individual sentences are not challenged and it is not therefore necessary to set out the offence specific guidelines for drugs. Mr Wills had a significant role,it was category 2 offending which were both Class A conspiracies gave a starting point of 8 years with a range of 6½ years to 10 years. In relation to the possession of cocaine with intent to supply the starting point was one of 4 years 6 months’ custody. In relation to conspiracy to supply Class B drugs, Mr Wills fell in the sentence category with a starting point of 4 years’ custody.

There were aggravating features being the previous convictions, the presence of Mr Wills own young family who were living at the Old Quarry and the supply of drugs in Operation Lapping after an arrest in Operation Hotdog.

With regards to mitigating features, the judge took into account the delays in the proceedings and, of course, it is only fair to everyone to note these proceedings overlapped with the Covid-19 pandemic and the disruption caused by that. The Sentencing Council Guideline provides that delay may be a mitigating factor where there has been unreasonable delay in proceedings since apprehension.

So far as the Sentencing Council Guidelines on Totality are concerned, these are dated 1 July 2023 and applied both below and here. They record that under the heading “Consecutive sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where” and then:

“offences committed in the same incident are distinct, involving an aggravating element that requires separate recognition.”

One of the bullet point examples include:

“where the offender is convicted of drug dealing and possession of a firearm offence. The firearm offence is not the essence of an intrinsic part of the drugs offence and requires separate recognition.”

The guideline also provides as another example where consecutive sentences will ordinarily be appropriate:

“one or more offence(s) qualifies for a statutory minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum.”

Examples include:

“• other offences sentenced alongside possession of a prohibited weapon (which attracts a five year minimum term) - any reduction on grounds of totality should not reduce the effect of properly deterrent and commensurate sentences. The court should not reduce an otherwise appropriate consecutive sentence for another offence so as to remove the impact of the mandatory minimum steps for the firearms offence.”

A difficulty for the Solicitor General, Mr Wills and the Court on this Reference is the absence of a transcript of the judge’s sentencing remarks. It is common ground that it was a complex sentencing exercise and it is also common ground that the judge’s conclusions in respect of the appropriate term for each individual offence taken alone were permissible, as was the reduction for delay.

We consider that the judge was entitled to conclude the principles of totality required a reduction to the sentence to produce a sentence that was just and proportionate. A reduction that was given of 4 years might be considered to be very substantial and might have been considered to be merciful, but we could not say that was unduly lenient. As to the ground relating to the Reduction for Guilty Plea, this was, in our judgment, an academic point because all the sentences for which there were guilty pleas were made concurrent and the reduction and changes would not have altered very much the structure of the sentence.

We then turn to the main issue, which is whether the judge was wrong to conclude that the sentence of 5 years’ custody in respect of a firearms offence should run concurrent to the appropriate sentence for the drug offences. We do consider that the judge was wrong not to make the sentence of 5 years consecutive to the other offences. We agree that the structure of the sentence undermines the impact of the mandatory minimum term provided by Parliament for firearms offences. We consider that consistent with the Guidelines, the firearm sentence should have been consecutive to the drugs offence.

In those circumstances, that would leave a sentence therefore of 5 years for the mandatory minimum sentence for firearms offences plus a consecutive 9 years for the drugs matters in which the judge had also purported to include the criminality of the firearms offence. We do note the weapon was used for hunting but Mr Wills did not have a licence and was still a prohibited person because of his previous sentences. The fact of hunting may be relevant in some circumstances, but here Mr Wills possessed the firearm when he was involved in three separate conspiracies to supply drugs and was buying drugs from an Organised Crime Group. Organised Crime Groups are not noted for their reasonableness or adherence to the law. The risk of misuse of the weapons in those circumstances was therefore significant.

We turn to the point made in the Totality Guideline under the second drop down, that firearm offences require separate recognition. We consider that having regard to the reductions which the judge had already made for totality, there is no requirement to make a further reduction for totality having structured the sentence for a sentence on count 7 (the firearm offence) of 5 years, and then a consecutive sentence for the other offending but excluding the firearm offence of 9 years. We consider that, having regard to all of the criminality that was disclosed in both Operation Lapping and Operation Hotdog and the possession of the firearms, that the total sentence of 14 years is just and proportionate. In those circumstances, the Reference succeeds.