Ajmal, R. v

Where two arson offences form aspects of one closely connected episode, the second offence may aggravate the first but does not necessarily justify a consecutive sentence. The sentencing court must apply totality.

For arson with intent to endanger life, the normal post-trial range identified in Attorney-General's Reference No 68 of 2008 [2008] EWCA 3088 provides an important sentencing starting point. An unsuccessful attempt and a guilty plea may justify a lower sentence, while the seriousness of the intent remains substantial.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to attempted arson with intent to endanger life and to a further count of arson. He threw a makeshift petrol bomb at an occupied house. The device failed to ignite the petrol. About five minutes later, he used a similar device to set fire to a nearby van.

The sentencing judge imposed nine years’ imprisonment for the attempted arson and two years’ imprisonment for the arson, consecutively, making eleven years. The appellant appealed the total sentence with permission of the single judge. The central issues were whether consecutive sentences were justified and whether nine years for the attempted arson was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The total sentence of eleven years was excessive. The court substituted eight years’ imprisonment for the attempted arson with intent to endanger life and directed that the two-year sentence for arson should run concurrently.
2. The offences were targeted attacks and the sentencing judge was entitled, indeed obliged, to regard them as very serious. A failed petrol-bomb attack on an occupied house involved the same wicked intent as completed arson with intent to endanger life, although the appellant had not put petrol through the letterbox and there was no evidence that he knew children were present.
3. The court accepted that Attorney-General's Reference No 68 of 2008 [2008] EWCA 3088 identified a normal range of eight to ten years after trial for the completed offence of arson with intent to endanger life. That range was the relevant sentencing context, but this was an unsuccessful attempt and the appellant had pleaded guilty, albeit late.
4. The second attack aggravated the first and could not be ignored. However, the locations were in close proximity and the offences were two aspects of what was effectively one episode. Totality therefore required concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences. A two-year sentence for the second offence was not wrong in principle, but it should have been concurrent.
5. Taking account of the concurrence of the second sentence, the unsuccessful attempt, and the late guilty plea, eight years’ imprisonment on count 1 was the proper sentence. The sentence on count 2 remained two years’ imprisonment, concurrent, producing an overall sentence of eight years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted an overall sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.
• Sheffield Crown Court: On 17 September 2009, imposed nine years’ imprisonment for attempted arson with intent to endanger life and two years for arson, to run consecutively.