R v Haseeb Majid

A sentencing judge’s factual findings carry heavy weight, but cannot stand where they conflict with the jury’s verdict. An acquittal on a knife-carrying charge may be consistent with an aggressive intent formed only when the defendant leaves his car, though inconsistent with an aggressive intent formed when he first sees the victim. Under paragraph 4(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020, taking a knife towards the victim’s vehicle intending it to be available as a weapon satisfies the weapon-to-scene limb; an intention to commit an offence is not required. A brief interval before the attack may not constitute significant planning or premeditation. The statutory starting point must then be adjusted by weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Nottingham of murdering Mohammed Duraab Khan and was acquitted of possessing a bladed article in a public place contrary to s. 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 26 years, less 228 days served on remand.

He appealed against the length of the minimum term. He argued that the sentencing judge’s findings about aggression, planning, premeditation and intent to kill were inconsistent with the jury’s verdict, and that the 25-year statutory starting point was wrong. The central issues were the effect of the jury’s verdict on sentencing findings and whether taking the knife from the car towards the victim constituted taking a weapon to the scene.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The minimum term was reduced to 22 years and 137 days, representing 23 years less the 228 days served on remand.

2. The Court gave substantial weight to the trial judge’s findings, but held that appellate intervention was required where a finding conflicted with the jury’s verdict. In light of the agreed directions on the statutory good-reason defence, the verdict on Count 2 was inconsistent with an aggressive intent formed when the appellant first saw Mr Khan. It remained consistent with an aggressive intent formed when the appellant left his car carrying the knife.

3. The judge had correctly selected the 25-year starting point under paragraph 4(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020. The judge had proceeded under limb (b), namely that the appellant took the knife to the scene intending to have it available for use as a weapon, rather than under limb (a), which concerned taking it with an intention to commit an offence. Taking the knife from the car towards the vehicle in which Mr Khan was sitting constituted taking a weapon to the scene. The relatively short period involved justified scope for downward adjustment.

4. The finding of planning or premeditation could not stand. The interval between the appellant leaving the car with aggressive intent and committing the offence did not amount to significant planning or premeditation within the statutory language.

5. There was no basis to interfere with the finding of an intent to kill. In light of the other conclusions, that intent had to be treated as formed at the direct confrontation. The other aggravating factors were present, but limited weight was appropriate for the altercation with the other man and the previous violent offence committed at age 13. The mitigating factors substantially outweighed the aggravating factors.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was allowed in part. The minimum term was reduced to 22 years and 137 days: [2026] EWCA Crim 112.
• Crown Court at Nottingham — The appellant was convicted of murder on 4 September 2024 and sentenced on 19 September 2024 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 26 years, less 228 days served on remand.