Khan, R v

A life sentence is appropriate for very grave terrorist offending where the offender presents a risk of very grave harm for a period that cannot reliably be determined. In setting its specified minimum term, the court may take account of the consecutive determinate terms that would have been imposed for other counts.

The absence of an identified victim may reduce the gravity of an intended terrorist offence, but it does not make the minimum term excessive where the offender has developed a detailed and determined plan and has sought assistance to carry it out.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two offences of conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism, contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, and two offences of possessing terrorist material, contrary to section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The principal offence concerned a plan to kidnap and kill a Muslim serving in the British Army, record the killing and distribute the film. A separate offence concerned substantial shipments of equipment and money for use by Al-Qaeda fighters near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The sentencing judge imposed life imprisonment with a specified minimum term of 14 years. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against that sentence, contending that the proposed victim had not been identified and that the minimum term was excessive.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The offending was exceptionally grave. The applicant was the leader and recruiter of a terrorist group, held extreme violent views, and posed a risk of very grave harm for a period that could not reliably be determined. He therefore satisfied the test for a life sentence stated in R v Hodgson (1968) 52 Cr App R(S) 113.

2. The sentencing judge had correctly taken account, in fixing the specified minimum term, of the consecutive sentences that would have been imposed for the equipment-supply and terrorist-document counts. That approach accorded with R v O'Brien [2007] 1 WLR 833.

3. It was relevant that no particular soldier had been identified, and the plan would have been still more serious had an intended victim been identified or an attempted kidnapping been imminent. However, the applicant had worked out the method of entrapment, kidnapping and execution, had identified possible locations, and had pressed others to find a suitable target. The proposed offence, if carried out, would have fallen within the whole-life category under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act.

4. The court also considered R v Barot [2008] 1 Cr App R(S) 31, in which a 30-year specified term followed a very late plea for a mass-murder plot. Against that comparator, and notwithstanding the earlier stage of this plot, the 14-year minimum term was not too long.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against the life sentence and 14-year specified minimum term.

• Sentencing court Following guilty pleas, Henriques J imposed life imprisonment with a specified minimum term of 14 years.