Regina v Haroon Iqbal

Regina v Haroon Iqbal

The 50% reduction applied by the sentencing judge to reflect the inchoate nature of the offence was manifestly excessive given the seriousness, sophistication, and persistence of the attempt, and the fact that the offence was only prevented by law enforcement intervention. A reduction of no more than one-sixth was warranted. The original sentence was unduly lenient and must be increased.

Parties
Applicant: Regina; Respondent: Haroon Iqbal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; Appellate Judgment
Outcome
sentence increased on Attorney General's reference
Legal Topics
Firearms Offences, Sentencing, Unduly Lenient Sentence, Attempted Offences
Criminal Law Firearms Offences Sentencing Unduly Lenient Sentence Attempted Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Applicant

Haroon Iqbal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for attempting to possess a prohibited firearm was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Appropriate reduction for inchoate (attempted) offences in sentencing

Ratio Decidendi

The 50% reduction applied by the sentencing judge to reflect the inchoate nature of the offence was manifestly excessive given the seriousness, sophistication, and persistence of the attempt, and the fact that the offence was only prevented by law enforcement intervention. A reduction of no more than one-sixth was warranted. The original sentence was unduly lenient and must be increased.

Court Disposition

sentence increased on Attorney General's reference

Orders

  • Original sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment quashed
  • Substituted sentence of three years and nine months' imprisonment imposed