Ahmed, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

An applicant applies for leave to appeal an extended sentence of 24 years' imprisonment imposed on 7 March 2024 following a trial in the Crown Court at Birmingham. The sentence was for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968, consisting of 20 years' custody plus an extended licence of 4 years. The applicant also seeks leave to appeal a concurrent 12-year sentence for wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and a concurrent 3-month sentence for possession of an offensive weapon in a private place, to which he pleaded guilty before trial. The applicant was acquitted of attempted murder.

At the time of conviction, the applicant was 20 years old, and the sentences should have been terms of detention in a young offenders' institution; the record is to be amended accordingly.

On 26 June 2023, the applicant was sitting in a car with friends in Birmingham when a confrontation occurred involving a man known to them. The applicant obtained a firearm from a friend's car and, during an attack by two individuals armed with a machete, the applicant discharged the firearm at close range, injuring one attacker. The bullet lodged near the victim's spinal cord but did not cause damage to major organs. The applicant disposed of the firearm, which was never recovered, and a prohibited weapon was found at his home.

The applicant gave evidence at trial, claiming he believed the firearm was an imitation and acted in self-defence, but the jury rejected this defence. The applicant had prior convictions mainly related to driving offences and was assessed as immature with significant behavioural defects. Psychiatric evidence indicated mild depression and autistic spectrum traits affecting his judgement. The sentencing judge placed the offences in the highest culpability and harm categories, found the applicant dangerous, and imposed an extended sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in categorising the firearm and wounding offences within harm category 1 of the sentencing guidelines, which the applicant contends did not reflect the actual level of harm caused.
2. Whether the judge erred in aggravating the starting point for each offence, where the applicant submits any adjustment should have been downwards.
3. Whether the judge erred in making a finding of dangerousness sufficient to justify the imposition of an extended sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The applicant challenges the categorisation of harm as category 1 for both offences, relying on precedent indicating that category 1 harm is reserved for exceptional seriousness, arguing that the actual injury was not life-threatening or grave.
• The applicant submits that the aggravating factors were wrongly applied, contending previous convictions were irrelevant and cannabis use unrelated to the offence should not have been considered aggravating.
• The applicant contends the dangerousness finding was flawed, relying on risk assessment indicating medium risk of reoffending, and argues the judge failed to properly explain why an extended sentence was necessary instead of a lengthy determinate sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences and upheld the judge's findings on culpability, noting the applicant discharged a loaded firearm at close range. However, it found error in the judge's categorisation of harm as category 1, reasoning that the actual harm was not particularly grave or life-threatening by chance. The court applied the precedent from R v O'Bryan, which requires consideration of actual harm caused, and concluded the harm properly fell within category 2 for both offences.

The court accepted that the starting points for category 2A would be lower but emphasized that the risk of death or serious injury from discharging a firearm at close range justified a sentence at the top or beyond the category 2A range. The judge's consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, including the applicant's youth and immaturity, was found appropriate, and the court was unpersuaded that the previous convictions and cannabis use significantly aggravated the offences.

Regarding dangerousness, the court found ample evidence to justify the judge's conclusion that the applicant posed a significant risk of serious harm, particularly given the possession and use of a loaded firearm in a dispute. The judge's direct assessment of the applicant's risk after seeing him give evidence was given weight, and the extended sentence was deemed justified.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal on the basis that the categorisation of harm was arguable but ultimately DISMISSED the appeal, holding that the lengthy sentence imposed was just and proportionate.

The decision confirms that while actual harm must be carefully assessed in sentencing, the foreseeability and risk of serious harm from the use of firearms can justify sentences at the higher end of the relevant guideline ranges. The ruling affirms the appropriateness of extended sentences where the offender poses a significant risk of serious harm, particularly after direct judicial assessment of the offender's risk and characteristics. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles.