Regina v Haroon Iqbal

On a reference against an unduly lenient sentence for an attempted firearms offence, the reduction for the inchoate nature of the offence must reflect all the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the stage at which the attempt failed and the reason for non-completion. Where the offender would have completed the offence but for interception, and the attempt was persistent or sophisticated, only a small reduction within the applicable sentencing range will usually be appropriate. A reduction of 50 per cent was manifestly excessive where the attempt to obtain a prohibited firearm failed only because of intervention by law-enforcement authorities.

Following a guilty plea, the Crown Court at Birmingham sentenced the offender to 27 months’ imprisonment for attempting to possess a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that the reduction for the inchoate nature of the offence was unduly generous.

The central issue was whether the judge was entitled to reduce the seven-year firearms-guideline starting point by 50 per cent, given the persistent, sophisticated and international nature of the attempt and its failure only because of law-enforcement intervention.

1. The reference was allowed. The sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with three years and nine months’ imprisonment. All other elements of the sentence remained undisturbed.
2. References under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 have a high threshold. Appellate interference requires a sentence to be not merely lenient but unduly lenient, involving gross error or a substantial departure from ordinary sentencing norms.
3. The judge’s categorisation of the offence under the firearms guideline, with a seven-year starting point and a six-to-eight-year range, was accepted. The initial reduction to six years, reflecting aggravating and mitigating features, fell within the judge’s discretion, although it was arguably generous.
4. The reduction for an attempt depends on all the circumstances, including the stage at which the attempt failed and the reason for non-completion. Where completion was prevented only at a late stage, or would have occurred absent interception, a small reduction within the category range will usually be appropriate.
5. The attempt was persistent, prolonged and sophisticated. It involved encrypted communications, overseas sourcing, decoy packaging, multiple telephones, a safe address and group activity. It failed only because authorities in the United Kingdom and the United States interrupted it. A discount of no more than one-sixth, or one year, was warranted. After 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence was three years and nine months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Birmingham was quashed and replaced with three years and nine months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: on 26 May 2022, the offender was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to attempting to possess a prohibited firearm.