Haque, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 3 October 2020, the Appellant was stopped and searched by police, who found a small amount of heroin. He pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled drug and was committed to the Crown Court for sentencing. This offence was unrelated to subsequent offences and is not contested on appeal.

On 24 November 2022, the Appellant entered a family-run newsagents in The City, where two female victims were working. The Appellant returned wearing goggles and a scarf, producing an imitation firearm and threatening the victims to obtain approximately £200. Police were alerted via a panic button, and CCTV footage was seized.

The Appellant was initially arrested but released due to insufficient evidence. A later witness identified him, leading to a second arrest on 5 December 2022. The imitation firearm was not recovered but accepted by the Prosecution as an imitation.

On 26 October 2023, the Appellant was convicted at the Crown Court before a judge and jury of robbery and possession of a firearm at the time of committing an offence. On 5 February 2024, he was sentenced to an extended sentence of 12 years for robbery (10 years custody plus 2 years extended licence), 5 years concurrent for possession of an imitation firearm, and a fine or equivalent custody for the drug offence. The Appellant appeals by leave of a single judge, challenging only the robbery and firearm sentences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the level of harm caused by the robbery offence, particularly regarding the finding of serious psychological harm to one victim.
2. Whether the sentence imposed for possession of the imitation firearm was manifestly excessive or wrongly categorised under the relevant sentencing guidelines.
3. Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors presented on behalf of the Appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentences for robbery and possession of the imitation firearm were manifestly excessive due to misapplication of sentencing guidelines, particularly in the assessment of harm level.
• The judge incorrectly categorised the offences, leading to disproportionate sentencing.
• The judge did not adequately consider mitigating factors advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the sentence for possession of the imitation firearm, noting the statutory minimum sentence of five years applied with no exceptional circumstances presented to justify a lesser sentence. Any errors in categorisation were therefore immaterial, and the sentence was upheld.

The central issue concerned the robbery offence and whether serious psychological harm (category 1 harm) had been caused to one victim. The sentencing judge had categorised the offence as category 1A, based on her observation of the victim and the victim personal statement. The appellate court referred to the precedent in R v Chall, confirming that expert evidence is not mandatory for such a finding.

However, upon review of the victim's evidence transcript, the appellate court found no basis to conclude serious psychological harm had occurred. While the victim experienced fear, flashbacks, and was unable to return to work, the harm did not meet the threshold for category 1. The court therefore determined the appropriate categorisation was category 2A, indicating more than minimal but less than serious harm.

Accordingly, the original custodial sentence of 10 years was manifestly excessive. The court substituted a custodial term of 8 years within the category 2A range, maintaining the extended licence period of 2 years due to the Appellant’s dangerousness. The sentences for other offences remained unchanged and concurrent.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED IN PART the appeal.

The extended sentence of 12 years imposed for the robbery was quashed and substituted with an extended sentence of 10 years, comprising 8 years custody and 2 years extended licence. The 5-year concurrent sentence for possession of the imitation firearm and the sentence for the drug offence were upheld. The decision does not establish new precedent but clarifies the application of harm categorisation in sentencing robbery offences involving psychological harm.