Meikiel Dixon-Nash and Others [2019] EWCA Crim 1173

Three appellants were convicted after trial for conspiring to transfer firearms contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977. Dixon-Nash (MDN) was found to be the leader of the conspiracy and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, Dixon (CD) was a “key facilitator” and sentenced to 14 years and Coote (MC) was sentenced to detention of 8 years. CD was the mother of MDN (27 years) and MC (16 years).

The conspiracy concerned 3 prohibited firearms, a Russian made Baikal found in the possession of a third party but supplied by MDN and CD, the pistol was linked to 2 shootings. A Colt 45 was found in the possession of CD and a Mach 10 sub-machine gun was also found. Two incidents of gang-related violence led to the appellants’ arrest.

The starting point for sentencing were the considerations set out in Wilkinson [2009] EWCA Crim 1925. The appeal focussed on the guidance given in AGs Reference as to the principles to be applied. First that a sentence of life imprisonment must expressly be considered by the judge; second, if a life sentence is not imposed a long determinate sentence must be; third, sentences must reflect the hierarchy of the supply enterprise and any previous convictions in relation to guns; fourth, a very long sentence is required for the leader of an enterprise, an appropriate starting point would be 25 years; fifth, a materially greater sentence than 25 years is appropriate where there are previous convictions for guns; sixth, the same level of sentence is appropriate for an enterprise entailing converting or acquiring guns as opposed to importing them; seventh, sentences below the level of leader should receive sentences reflecting the sentence for the leader, depending on the role played; eight, for purchasers it is appropriate to proceed on the basis that the purchaser acquired the guns to “kill, maim, terrorise or intimidate”, a sentence in the region of 15 years is appropriate; ninth, significantly higher sentences would be required for purchasers with previous convictions in relation to guns; and tenth, defendants assisting in transactions will receive varying sentences, for those assisting putting guns into circulation there would be a starting point of 8 years, a sentence materially higher is appropriate where the assistance is significant.

MDN – the following facts were relevant to sentence, the guns were used in a vendetta against a rival gang, the vendetta was of long duration (around 10 years), MDN had been involved throughout, the guns were intended for wider use, the weapons included a machine gun, he was a leading member, at least one shooting occurred, he was in overall charge of transferring weapons around London, the activity continued even when he knew one weapon had been seized by the police, he knew the weapons would be used in offences, he recruited his mum and brother and had previous convictions for gang related violence. The sentence was neither excessive nor manifestly so.

CD – she was in possession of keys to her father’s house where weapons were stored and was plainly involved in storing and transferring weapons, the harm from the sub-machine gun would have been devastating, and she knew that the firearms were intended for use by others to terrorise, maim and murder. CD had an outward appearance of respectability which was perfect cover, the inference drawn was that firearms were stored at the address for a significant period of time with her full knowledge and co-operation. She was a key facilitator and aware that these were gang weapons, used in gang violence. Calls from her in prison to her sons were recorded and she was directing them what to say, so was far from naïve and the calls placed her in the hierarchy during the conspiracy. There needed to be a greater disparity, however, with the sentence of MDN to reflect properly her role in the hierarchy, the analysis being that she was the least culpable of the three. The sentence of 14 years was quashed and substituted with one of 11 years.

MC – he was 16 at the time of the offending and was “heavily involved” in the conspiracy, he was involved in the transfer of the pistol and continued to be involved in storage after seizure of it. The judge concluded that he was neither naïve nor completely innocent and was more involved than his mother. He did not accept any responsibility for his actions. The core of the appeal (as with CD) was whether the sentence was commensurate with that of MDN. Even if the differential should have been greater, a generous discount was given for his age so compensated for that. Looking at the sentence imposed from the perspective of totality there was nothing wrong with the sentence imposed.