R v Haroon Ahmed

Where a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) is imposed after an extended determinate sentence has become available, the sentencing judge must expressly consider that alternative. IPP is a sentence of second last resort. If an extended sentence, with any necessary additional orders, would adequately protect the public, it should be imposed instead. Limited injury in the index offence does not prevent a finding of dangerousness where the circumstances disclose a serious threat and an escalation in offending. The court may consider material in pre-sentence and medical reports, including serious conduct accepted at sentence, together with expert risk assessments. An extension of time is discretionary and depends on all the material circumstances, including the delay, its explanation, the merits and the interests of justice.

The applicant, aged 20, pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced by the Crown Court at Derby on 11 September 2008 to imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of two and a half years. He sought an extension of 5755 days to appeal. He argued that the sentencing judge had wrongly found him dangerous and, alternatively, had failed to consider an extended determinate sentence under the amended Criminal Justice Act 2003. The central issues were whether the finding of dangerousness was open on the evidence and whether the judge had properly considered the available sentencing alternatives.

The court granted the extension of time, granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal to the extent stated.

1. Extension of time. The discretion to extend time required consideration of all the material circumstances, including the explanation for the delay, the cogency of the reasons advanced and the substantive merits. The delay was exceptionally long, but the explanation and merits justified an extension.
2. Dangerousness. The sentencing judge was entitled to find a significant risk of serious harm through further specified offences. The applicant had organised and instigated a robbery involving a large knife held to the victim’s throat. The limited injury was fortuitous. His substantial record showed escalation, while the pre-sentence and medical reports presented a troubling picture, including an account of serious violence against another inmate. The judge was entitled to rely on the applicant’s counsel having confirmed the truth of that account, together with the applicant’s unwillingness to co-operate with psychiatric assessment and the expert evidence of future risk.
3. Choice of sentence. By the date of final sentence, the amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had made an extended determinate sentence available. The judge’s failure to refer to that option, coupled with his earlier indication that he intended to impose an IPP, justified the inference that it had not been considered. An IPP was a sentence of second last resort. The judge should have expressly considered whether an extended determinate sentence would provide sufficient public protection.
4. Disposition. The necessary protection would have been achieved by an extended determinate sentence totalling 10 years, comprising five years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period. The IPP order was quashed and that sentence substituted.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). On 13 November 2025, the court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the IPP, and substituted a 10-year extended determinate sentence.
2. Crown Court at Derby. On 11 September 2008, the applicant was sentenced for robbery to imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of two and a half years.