Ajmal, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 536 (24 February 2010)

Ajmal, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 536 (24 February 2010)

Consecutive sentences should not have been imposed for two aspects of what was effectively one episode; the proper sentence for attempted arson with intent to endanger life, following a guilty plea and considering aggravating factors, is 8 years' imprisonment with the second count made concurrent.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Crim 536
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Amar Ajmal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Arson, Attempted Arson, Sentencing, Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences
Criminal Law Arson Attempted Arson Sentencing Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Amar Ajmal

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consecutive sentences were appropriate for two related offences
  2. 2 Whether the sentence for attempted arson with intent to endanger life was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

Consecutive sentences should not have been imposed for two aspects of what was effectively one episode; the proper sentence for attempted arson with intent to endanger life, following a guilty plea and considering aggravating factors, is 8 years' imprisonment with the second count made concurrent.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence on count 1 (attempted arson with intent to endanger life) reduced to 8 years' imprisonment
  • Sentence on count 2 (arson) made concurrent with count 1