R v Karan Singh & Ors [2025] EWCA Crim 785

[2025] EWCA Crim 785Case Nos: 202501418 A5 , 202501419 A5, 202501421 A5, 202501423 A5, 202501424 A5, 202501425 A5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BASILDON
HIS HONOUR JUDGE GRAHAM
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 24/06/2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE BEANMR JUSTICE BUTCHERHIS HONOUR JUDGE MARKS KC, COMMON SERJEANT OF LONDON
Between
Karan Singh & OrsDefendantRCrown
Reference by the Solicitor General under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 THE KING AND KARAN SINGH, STEPHEN AYANLEYE, DAFE OROGUN, BRYAN AIDOO, ROQEEB LADEAGA and GABRIEL ADEPOJU
Hearing Hearing date: 20 June 2025
Ms A Husbands for the Solicitor General
Mr M Jones for the Offender Singh
Mr R Furlong for the Offender Orogun
Mr J Wing for the Offender Ayanleye
Mr B Hale for the Offender Aidoo
Mr D Thomas for the Offender Ladeaga
Mr L Loughlin for the Offender Adepoju
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 14.00pm on 24 June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
[1]On 28 March 2025, in the Crown Court at Basildon, six defendants were sentenced by HHJ Graham for firearms offences. Orogun and Singh had been convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possesses a firearm with intent to endanger life (count 1 of the indictment). The sentence on Orogun was 14 years imprisonment and that on Singh was 8 years detention. The other four defendants had pleaded guilty on the listed trial date to conspiracy to possess a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence (count 2). Ayanleye was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, Ladeaga to 4 ½ years imprisonment, Aidoo to 4 years detention and Adepoju to 3 years imprisonment. In addition, Orogun, Singh and Adepoju received 1 year consecutive sentences on a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Orogun and Singhhad been convicted of this by the jury and Adepoju had pleaded guilty to it. Aidoo also received a 6 month concurrent sentence for possession of a bladed article, namely a Rambo knife.[2]Ms Husbands, for the Solicitor General, applies for leave to refer all these sentences to this court as being unduly lenient. She does so for the following reasons:(a) These offences were committed against the backdrop of gang rivalry. The conspiracies carried a grave risk to the general public and involved the discharging of live ammunition, a ride-out onto rival territory, and the use of the firearm to threaten, although not discharged. These offenders conspired to endanger lives and cause fear, by several acts of violence. The starting point identified on the guidelines was for a single offence. No uplift was applied to reflect the multiple acts planned within these conspiracies, or to reflect that these were conspiracies, rather than a single substantive offence;(b) Additionally, having identified the presence of several aggravating features, no uplift was applied to the starting point to reflect those aggravating features;(c) While the minimum sentence for possession of a firearm did not apply to these conspiracies, regard should have been had to the minimum terms in sentencing the offenders facing Count 2 had they faced a substantive count;(d) A consecutive sentence should have been considered for Bryan Aidoo, to reflect the possession of the bladed article;(e) Insufficient weight was given to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Facts – in summary:

[3]During October and November 2023, these offenders, members and associates of the WoolyO gang based in Woolwich South East London, obtained a handgun and live ammunition. During that period, they used the handgun and ammunition with intent to endanger life (Singh & Orogun), and intent to cause fear of violence (Ayaleye, Aidoo, Ladeaga, Adepoju) to members of an opposing gang based on the Cherry Orchard Estate in Charlton, and others. This was done by involvement in a planned ride-out onto the Cherry Orchard Estate, a shooting on the Cherry Orchard Estate, a robbery in Aveley near a safehouse rented by the group, and various videos found on Singh’s phone and chat groups threatening further gun violence. On one video, featuring Ladeaga, bullets were assigned to various named individuals from opposing gangs.[4]On 20 November 2023, police were called to a suspected robbery in Aveley, where it was reported that a proposed transaction to sell mobile phones had gone sour as cash was stolen by two men wielding a firearm. Police attended the scene and recovered a magazine from a handgun containing a single bullet, and another bullet from the floor. These were later discovered to be live ammunition. Some boxes were also recovered from the scene by police.[5]The following morning, police returned to the scene of the suspected robbery to find Bryan Aidoo looking for something on the floor. He had in his possession a Rambo knife, £820 cash and a balaclava. He was arrested on suspicion of robbery. Whilst at the scene, Karan Singh asked police if he could have his mobile phone back, which Bryan Aidoo had in his possession. Police did not return the phone, but seized it. It was a blue iphone which did indeed belong to Karan Singh. Karan Singh was not arrested, as his involvement was not known to police at that time.[6]Police then downloaded and forensically examined the blue iphone that had been found on Bryan Aidoo. This phone contained evidence linking the offenders(a) to each other,(b) to a firearm from which the seized magazine and ammunition had come,(c) to joint possession of that firearm between the group via various videos recorded at a safehouse at 54 Hall Road which showed group members posing with the firearm, discharging it and making threats with it, and(d) to two shootings on 25 October 2023 and 18 November 2023, of which the Metropolitan Police were aware, that had taken place on the Cherry Orchard Estate.[7]In the 25 October incident a moped carrying two of the offenders was seen to chase another male down a road on the Cherry Orchard Estate. Two gunshots were heard. The gunshots were also recorded on CCTV from a local shop in the area. Police were called to the area and recovered the casings from two live bullets, which were consistent with being fired from a semi-automatic firearm, such as a Springfield XD. A gun linked to the casings was later found, in June 2024, at an address associated with the Cherry Orchard Estate gang. By the end of the Crown’s case, they accepted that the discharged firearm was likely to have been used by opposing gang members shooting towards the Offenders on the moped. The Crown’s case remained that those on the moped were armed with a firearm themselves.[8]On 18 November 2023, police were called to Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, as a man called Jordan Jombola had attended with a bullet wound to his shoulder. He had been shot whilst sitting in a car on the Cherry Orchard Estate. It was the Crown’s case that he had been shot by one of these Offenders. Police attended the Cherry Orchard Estate and recovered bullet casings consistent with having been discharged from a semi-automatic firearm, such as a Springfield XD. The bullet fragments recovered from the shoulder of the man at hospital were consistent with having been discharged from one of the casings found on the street at the scene of the shooting.[9]In summary, this group of offenders had possession of a Springfield XD semi-automatic firearm between October and November 2023, as a ‘pool’ weapon. It was jointly possessed by the group, ready to be used whenever the need arose. The co-conspirators with access to this pool weapon were linked to a shooting incident during the drive-out on 25 October 2023, and the shooting on 18 November 2023 when Mr Jombola was shot in the shoulder.[10]There was a further incident on 20 November 2023, where a firearm had been used to threaten violence during a robbery incident, however the firearm was not discharged.[11]On arrest for his involvement with the firearm, a phone was seized from Dafe Orogun. On that phone were messages between himself, Karan Singh and Gabriel Adepoju, discussing paying off those who had contacted police in relation to the suspected robbery on 20 November 2023.

Basis for sentence

[12]In respect of Count 1, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, it was the prosecution’s case that Karan Singh and Dafe Orogun, together with others unknown, had become involved in a conspiracy to possess at least one firearm with intent to endanger life. This was demonstrated by their particular involvement in the shooting of Jordan Jombola on 18 November 2023, their repeated references in messages to the use of firearms and taking the ‘XD’ onto enemy territory, and their obvious seniority in the WoolyO group, given Singh’s contact with the Cherry Elders followed up by Orogun, and the way in which they both dominated the groupchats with suggestions of targeting rival gangs. They were in constant contact with one another.[13]With respect to Count 2, it was the prosecution’s case that all six Offenders were involved in a conspiracy to possess at least one firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, as demonstrated by the involvement in the ride-out on to the Cherry Orchard Estate on the 25 October 2023, the shooting of Jordan Jombola, the brandishing and firing of the Springfield XD in the videos from Hall Road, and the use of the firearm on the 20 November 2023 as a weapon (albeit not discharged).

Perverting the course of justice

[14]A man called Shahid Khan provided detailed statements to police on 30 November 2023 in which he explained the background to the 20 November 2023 incident. He said that he had been forced to hand over cash by two men armed with a knife and a handgun. He had arranged to meet the men to buy mobile phones. He went on to provide further statements, and was due to attend further appointments with the police, including identification parades.[15]Shahid Khan later withdrew his support for a prosecution, stating personal reasons. However, it was the basis of the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice that Karan Singh, Dafe Orogun and Gabriel Adepoju were involved in acts which encouraged his lack of co-operation with police, by offering to pay him £4000 and a Rolex watch.[16]When the police arrested Dafe Orogun, they seized his phone and downloaded it. On it were a number of screenshots saved onto the camera roll. These screenshots were of various conversations, primarily on snapchat. The screenshots showed that at the beginning of December 2023, the offenders Karan Singh, Dafe Orogun and Gabriel Adepoju set about trying to get Shahid Khan to withdraw his support for the prosecution.[17]Messages between Dafe Orogun and a third party named Adeel Malik, made reference to a statement being ‘done’ and charges being ‘dropped’ if the ‘money comes back’. Later messages between Karan Singh and Shahid Khan showed that payment of £4.5k was discussed. Shahid Khan was suggesting that if he was paid money, he would not attend an ID parade that had been arranged by police. Karan Singh screenshotted the conversations and sent them to Dafe Orogun. Other messages showed that Shahid Khan was offered a Rolex watch and money to “drop the case str8 away”. Shahid Khan became impatient about not being paid. It also appeared that he had been given a watch by Gabriel Adepoju without any authenticating papers. Further messages between Dafe Orogun and Gabriel Adepoju encouraged him to hand over authenticating papers for the watch in order to keep them (Shahid Khan and others) ‘compliant’.[18]On 15 February 2024, the Offenders began setting up fake snapchat accounts using the username “Shahid” in order to create a fake evidence trail. Dafe Orogun continued with this until 18 May 2024, after he had been arrested. He set about changing an account called ‘bookings4life’ to show the display name “Shahid”.[19]In respect of Count 5, Adepoju was involved in the suspected robbery of Shahid Khan on 30 November 2023, in a meeting originally brokered by Karan Singh. This then led to Singh, Orogun and Adepoju becoming involved in a sophisticated conspiracy to prevent Shahid Khan continuing to co-operate with the police, by offering him cash and a watch to withdraw his statement. This was supported by Singh and Orogun making fake snapchat accounts in order to communicate with Shahid Khan whilst avoiding exposure in the operation.

Categorisation of the firearms offences

[20]The guidelines for possession of the firearm with intent to endanger life (section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 and for possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence (section 16A) each have the familiar grading of culpability and harm. The judge found that in each case there was high culpability and no party suggests that he was wrong to do so. So far as harm is concerned, the guideline for each offence distinguishes between severe physical harm caused and serious physical harm. The judge found that the injury to Mr Jombola constituted serious harm and that the substantive offences in this case were therefore category 2A. In his sentencing remarks he said “I am not totally persuaded that this is a category 1 case. There is no sufficient medical evidence or evidence from Mr Jombola himself to say that this is severe harm and therefore I am prepared to accept that I should deal with this as a category 2 harm case”.[21]In oral argument Ms Husbands accepted that the judge could properly treat this as a Category 2A case. She was clearly right to do so.[22]For a single category 2A offence of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life the starting point if is 14 years custody with a category range of 11 to 17 years. For a category 2A offence of possession with intent to cause fear of violence, the starting point is six 6 years with a category range of 4 to 8 years. However, for the substantive offence there is a minimum term for an offender aged 18 or over of 5 years, unless there are exceptional circumstances; and this statutory minimum applies even on a plea of guilty.

Seriousness of gun crime

[23]In the well-known case of Attorney General’s Ref no. 43 (Bennett and Wilkinson) [2009] EWCA Crim 1925, Lord Judge CJ said:- “The gravity of gun crime cannot be exaggerated. Guns kill and maim, terrorise and intimidate. That is why criminals want them: that is why they use them: and that is why they organise their importation and manufacture, supply and distribution. Sentencing courts must address the fact that too many lethal weapons are too readily available: too many are carried: too many are used, always with devastating effect on individual victims and with insidious corrosive impact on the wellbeing of the local community.… as a matter of sentencing reality, whenever a gun is made available for use as well as when a gun is used, public protection is the paramount consideration. Deterrent and punitive sentences are required and should be imposed.”[24]The Sentencing Council had these words in mind when drafting the appropriate starting points for a single offence contrary to s.16 and s.16A of the Firearms Act 1968.

Approach to references on sentence

[25]The Reference quite rightly cites the observations of Lord Lane CJ giving the judgment of this court in Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 4 of 1989) (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (S.) 517:
“The first thing to be observed is that it is implicit in the section that this Court may only increase sentences which it concludes were unduly lenient. It cannot, we are confident, have been the intention of Parliament to subject defendants to the risk of having their sentences increased—with all the anxiety that that naturally gives rise to—merely because in the opinion of this Court the sentence was less than this Court would have imposed. A sentence is unduly lenient, we would hold, where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate…………. However it must always be remembered that sentencing is an art rather than a science; that the trial judge is particularly well placed to assess the weight to be given to various competing considerations; and that leniency is not in itself a vice. That mercy should season justice is a proposition as soundly based in law as it is in literature. The second thing to be observed about the section is that, even where it considers that the sentence was unduly lenient, this Court has a discretion as to whether to exercise its powers.”
[26]In Attorney General’s Reference (No. 132 of 2001) (R. v. Johnson) [2002] EWCA Crim 1418 this court said that the purpose of s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is the avoidance of gross error, the allaying of widespread public concern at what appears to be an unduly lenient sentence and the preservation of public confidence in cases where a judge appears to have departed to a substantial extent from the norms of sentencing generally applied.[27]We would add that the margin of appreciation to be shown to the decision of a sentencing judge is particularly important when the judge has presided at a trial. A trial judge has the “feel” of the case in a way which this court cannot.

Orogun and Singh

[28]Ms Husbands’ submissions include two central points. Firstly, in the cases of Orogun and Singh, the starting point of 14 years adopted by the judge was the same as the guideline starting point for a single offence of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. Thus, it would have been the appropriate starting point had Orogun and Singh been convicted on a substantive charge relating only to the shooting of Mr Jombola on 18 November 2023. But, she submits, the conspiracy in the present case covered at least three incidents and involved conduct lasting about a month. The conspiracy charge of which Orogun and Singh were convicted should therefore have attracted a higher starting point than 14 years.[29]Mr Furlong, on behalf of Orogun, submits that to require an increase over the guideline figure for the section 16 offence simply because a conspiracy has been indicted is not appropriate. The Guideline for sentencing for the substantive offence already fills in some features of a conspiracy as factors demonstrating high culpability: sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning: leading role where offending is part of a group activity: prolonged incident. He submits that there is no clear evidence of any of the Offenders having discharged a firearm in a public place otherwise than on the occasion when Mr Jombola was shot in the arm. Mr Jones, for Karan Singh, submits that this case should be looked at in the round as a series of similar incidents.[30]The point of principle argued by Ms Husbands does not seem to have been put to the judge at the sentencing hearing. It is right to say that the written Sentencing Note put in by the prosecution for that hearing states, when setting out the Guideline, that it is the Guideline for a single offence of possession of a firearm, not for a conspiracy. However, prosecution counsel did not develop the point in oral argument and it is accordingly not surprising that the judge does not deal with it in his sentencing remarks.[31]Orogun was aged 22 at the time of the offence, 23 when sentenced. He had one relevant previous conviction, possession of a samurai sword in 2019. We consider that if we had been sitting at the trial and passing sentence, we might have increased the 14 year starting point to about 16 years to reflect the conspiracy element. However, we did not hear all the evidence at the trial; and bearing in mind the authorities cited above, we consider that a figure of 14 years, while perhaps on the lenient side, did not involve a gross error, nor was it outside the range of sentences which a reasonable judge might properly impose.[32]We take the same view of the sentence for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.[33]Turning to Singh, he was aged 17 ½ at the time of the offences and 19 at the time of sentence. He had no previous convictions and a good deal of personal mitigation, as a child he had witnessed family abuse and violence and had on one occasion been stabbed himself. The sentence of 8 years for the firearms offence represents a discount of more than 40% on the 14-year starting point including personal mitigation as well as the Offender’s youth; added to the one year consecutive sentence for perverting the course of justice this produced a total sentence of 9 years. As with the sentence on Orogun, we consider this to have been on the lenient side but not outside the range of sentences open to a reasonable trial judge.

Ladeaga, Ayanleye, Aidoo and Adepoju

[34]We turn now to the other four offenders who were sentenced for the lesser offence of possession of the firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. Ms Husbands’ second point relates to the cases of these four offenders. Parliament has laid down that a defendant aged 18 or more who has committed the substantive offence of possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence must receive a custodial sentence of at least five years save in exceptional circumstances (see s.311 of the Sentencing Act 2020.) Although this does not apply to a charge of conspiracy to possess a firearm with such an intent, it would, she submits, make a nonsense of Parliament’s intention to ignore the statutory minimum for the substantive offence where, as here, the weapon was prohibited, and the conspiracy involved greater criminality than a single substantive offence relating to a one off incident. We accept that this submission is correct.[35]The Guideline provides at paragraph 9 of Step 3 that “circumstances are exceptional if the imposition of the minimum term would result in an arbitrary and disproportionate sentence”. Paragraph 10 goes on to emphasise that the circumstances must be truly exceptional, and the courts must not undermine the deterrent purpose of the statute by too readily finding exceptional circumstances.[36]Ladeaga was aged 22 and with minimal previous convictions. He had some personal mitigation and the prison reports on him were highly favourable. Mr Thomas conceded that he was in difficulty on the statutory minimum point but argued forcefully that the court should not go further and increase the sentence of 4 ½ years beyond 5 years. We agree with him. The adjustment which we would make is a relatively minor one and we would not have held the sentence unduly lenient were it not for Ms Husbands’ point of principle about the statutory minimum. We consider that the sentence in his case should have been 5 years.[37]Ayanleye was the oldest of the offenders, being 28 at the time of sentence, and had a bad record. The judge took the guideline starting point of 6 years and reduced it to 5 years. We consider that in his case this was a lenient sentence but we are not satisfied that it crosses the threshold for an unduly lenient sentence.[38]Aidoo was aged 18 years and one month at the time of the offences, 19 at sentence. He had no previous convictions. The judge made a reduction from the guideline starting point of 6 years to 4 years with a concurrent sentence of 6 months for possession of the Rambo knife.[39]Dealing first with the firearms offence, if it had been a substantive charge, the statutory minimum would have applied to Aidoo and for the reasons set out by Ms Husbands to which we have already referred we consider that on the facts of this case it should effectively apply to the conspiracy charge cases as well. It does so even if the offender is aged only 18, or has no previous convictions. This is a harsh result for such an offender, but it is one which we consider that the judge was obliged to reach and that the sentence of 4 years was accordingly unduly lenient.[40]The offence of possession of the Rambo knife was a serious one of its kind. It was taken by Aidoo to the scene of the robbery carried out the previous day when he was seeking to retrieve evidence from the scene. In ordinary circumstances it would plainly require a consecutive sentence. The offence would in our view have been a category 1A bladed article offence with a starting point of 18 months less a reduction of 25% for the plea of guilty at the PTPH. A reduction to 9 months would have been justified in the light of his age and to account for totality. However, as we have said, the operation of the statutory minimum for the firearms offence is a severe outcome for Aidoo and in those circumstances, as an act of mercy, we are prepared, while increasing the judge’s 6 month sentence to 9 months, to say that it can remain a concurrent sentence so that in Aidoo’s case the total sentence will be 5 years.[41]Finally we turn to Adepoju, who was aged 23 at the time of sentence. The judge made clear findings that Adepoju’s role in the conspiracy relating to firearms was a more limited role than that of the other Offenders. He was not on the chat until late November; he was not seen to be on the videos; he was not on any of the ride-outs. The judge accordingly imposed a sentence of 3 years to reflect this limited role. We have considered carefully whether the statutory minimum issue outlined above requires us to find that this sentence was unduly lenient. We are satisfied that it does not. We consider that his limited role in the offence, as set out above, does amount to exceptional circumstances in his case. It would produce an arbitrary and disproportionate result if Adepoju, having been involved to a much more limited extent in the Count 2 conspiracy than the others, were to receive the same sentence as theirs. Having regard to the clear findings of the judge, we do not consider that his sentence should be altered. It therefore remains at 3 years for the firearms offence and 1 year consecutive for perverting the course of justice.

Conclusion

[42]We grant the Solicitor General’s application for leave to refer all six cases. In Ladeaga’s case we quash his sentence of 4 ½ years and substitute a sentence of 5 years. In Aidoo’s case we quash his sentences of 4 years on the firearms charge and 6 months concurrent on the bladed article charge and substitute 5 years on the firearms charge and 9 months concurrent on the bladed article charge. The sentences on Orogun, Singh, Ayanleye and Adepoju will remain unaltered.