R v Rohail Haseeb

In a sentence appeal, the trial judge is best placed to assess the risk of harm after seeing the evidence. An offence may fall within the applicable high-harm category where there is a high risk of severe psychological harm, even if the risk of death is arguable. A custodial sentence based on careful planning and a leading role will stand unless wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. A maximum extended licence period may also be upheld where the offender’s culpability, planning, leadership and antecedents provide sufficient evidence of continuing danger, even if the sentencing reasons could have been fuller.

Following a Crown Court trial, the applicant was convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968. He received an 18-year extended sentence, comprising 13 years’ custody and five years on extended licence.

The single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant renewed his application and sought a nine-day extension of time. He challenged the harm categorisation, the length of the extended licence period, and the credit given for his age and role. The central issues were whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and whether the maximum extension period was justified.

1. The renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

2. The trial judge was best placed to assess the risk of harm because he had viewed the CCTV and heard all the evidence. Even if there were some doubt about a high risk of death because the occupants were upstairs and the ground-floor lights were off, shooting into the living room of a family home created an undoubtedly high risk of severe psychological harm. The judge was therefore entitled to place the offence in category 2A, with a sentencing range of 11 to 17 years and a starting point of 14 years.

3. The one-year reduction for youth, prison conditions during the pandemic and the applicant’s experience as a victim of crime was not open to criticism. The evidence firmly supported the finding that he had played a leading role and had organised a carefully planned offence. The 13-year custodial term was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

4. Although the reasons for selecting the maximum five-year extension period were not fully explained, the circumstances supplied sufficient justification. The applicant’s culpability, planning and leadership were inconsistent with a plea of immaturity. Organising a group to fire a shotgun into an occupied home at close range, at night, together with the antecedent history, justified the conclusion that five years was required to reduce the future danger posed by him. The period was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on 9 June 2023, refused the renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence: [2023] EWCA Crim 679.
• Single judge: refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Leeds: convicted the applicant after trial and imposed an 18-year extended sentence, comprising 13 years’ custody and five years on extended licence.