R v Awais Ahmed

Sentencing-guideline harm categories must reflect the actual harm caused, not only the greater harm that might have occurred. A high-risk act does not itself establish category 1 harm. The court must also consider harm caused, intended or foreseeably caused, including both the likelihood and extent of harm. Discharging a loaded firearm at close range into the chest can justify a sentence at the top of, or beyond, category 2A despite less severe actual injury. Youth and immaturity require proper mitigation, but they do not preclude an extended sentence where the evidence establishes a significant risk of serious harm.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Birmingham, the applicant, aged 20 at conviction, received an extended sentence of 24 years for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968. He also received a concurrent 12-year sentence for wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and a concurrent three-month sentence for possessing an offensive weapon. He had been acquitted of attempted murder.

He sought leave to appeal against sentence on the categorisation of harm, the treatment of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the finding of dangerousness supporting the extended sentence. The central issues were whether the actual injuries fell within category 1 harm and whether the sentence remained justified after any correction.

The application for leave to appeal was arguable and leave was granted. The appeal was nevertheless dismissed because the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

1. Harm categorisation. The judge correctly placed culpability in the highest category for both offences. However, the harm had to be assessed by reference to the actual injury caused. Following R v O'Bryan [2021] EWCA Crim 1472, the court held that the injury caused by the firearm was not particularly grave, life-threatening or severe. The same reasoning applied to the firearms guideline. Both offences therefore fell within category 2. The wounding injury remained grave because the bullet was lodged close to the victim’s spine.
2. Effect of foreseeable harm. Section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 required regard to harm caused, intended or which might foreseeably have been caused. Assessment of risk required consideration of both the likelihood of harm and its extent. Firing a loaded firearm at close range into the chest carried a very high risk of death or extremely serious injury. The applicant must have foreseen that risk, so a sentence at the top of category 2A, or beyond it, was justified. Disposal of the firearm was also a significant aggravating factor.
3. Totality and mitigation. After re-categorisation, a 20-year custodial term remained justified when the offences and the knife offence were considered together. The applicant’s previous convictions and cannabis use were not significant aggravating factors. The sentencing judge had expressly taken account of youth, immaturity, mental health evidence and personal mitigation.
4. Dangerousness. The judge was entitled to find a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public, particularly the applicant’s peers, and to impose an extended sentence. Obtaining, carrying and using a loaded firearm in the context of an anticipated confrontation supported that conclusion. The applicant’s youth and the length of a determinate sentence did not prevent the finding. The record was amended to show terms of detention in a young offenders’ institution.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 1 July 2025, leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The record was amended to reflect detention in a young offenders’ institution.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: On 7 March 2024, an extended sentence of 24 years was imposed for the firearm offence, comprising 20 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period. Concurrent sentences included 12 years for wounding with intent and three months for possession of an offensive weapon.