Mansha, R. v

A person convicted of an offence of possessing information likely to be useful for terrorism should ordinarily expect a substantial custodial sentence. The sentence must reflect both the extreme seriousness of terrorist criminality and the need to deter others.

Sentencing must nevertheless be individualised. The court must assess the particular offender and all relevant circumstances, including limited intellectual ability and the extent to which any terrorist activity had progressed. Comparisons with sentences imposed in markedly different cases will not ordinarily assist. An appeal against sentence will fail where the judge has considered the relevant factors and imposed a sentence within the appropriate range.

The appellant was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of possessing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Documents identifying a soldier and recording enquiries about prominent individuals were found with propaganda DVDs, surveillance equipment and an imitation pistol that had apparently been the subject of an attempt at conversion.

On 26 January 2006, the Crown Court imposed six years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed, with leave, on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, relying on his youth, limited intelligence, follower role and the absence of any proven approach to the people identified.

1. Appeal dismissed. The six-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. The jury’s verdict established that the appellant had committed a terrorist offence under section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. A person who commits such an offence must expect a substantial sentence. A substantial sentence is required both to deter others and to mark the extreme seriousness of terrorist activity.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess this appellant’s offending on its own facts. The proposed comparison with the case involving Abu Hamza was not useful, because the court had to consider the particular facts and circumstances of this case and this offender.

4. The judge had taken account of the appellant’s limited intelligence, the evidence that others had played a significant part, and the fact that no further terrorist act had occurred. The resulting sentence was within the appropriate range in all the circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Southwark Crown Court: On 22 December 2005 the appellant was convicted under section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. On 26 January 2006 he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.