Worrell, R v

On an appeal against sentence, the decisive question is whether the sentence is commensurate with the offender’s overall criminality. A sentence near the top of the available range is not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive where the offender has progressed to experimenting with materials capable of use in terrorist acts, even if no device has been assembled and no particular attack is planned or imminent.

Concurrent sentences do not necessarily follow merely because separate offences arise from the same ideology and period. Consecutive sentences may properly reflect distinct forms of criminal conduct, subject to the totality principle.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Grimsby of racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress and possession of articles for terrorist purposes. He received 15 months’ imprisonment on the first count, consecutive to six years’ imprisonment on the second, making a total of seven years and three months.

The terrorist-purpose count concerned extremist material, manuals concerning explosives, chemicals and altered items found in his flat. The sentencing judge found that he had reached at least the stage of experimentation, but had not assembled an explosive device.

By leave of the single judge, he appealed against sentence. He contended that the six-year term was excessive, that the sentences should have been concurrent, and that the total sentence breached the totality principle.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of seven years and three months was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. The six-year sentence for possession of articles for terrorist purposes was at the top of the available range, but was justified. The appellant had extremist motivations, instructional material for making explosive devices, relevant materials, altered fireworks, prepared match heads and evidence of experimentation with a timing mechanism. Those features demonstrated a serious stage of preparation.
3. The absence of an assembled explosive device, an attempted assembly, an identified planned attack, or a threat to national security through a cell or conspiracy were important mitigating features. The sentencing judge had expressly taken them into account. They did not make the six-year sentence excessive.
4. The two offences were separate forms of criminal conduct. Their common origin in the appellant’s right-wing ideology, and their occurrence during the same period, did not require concurrent sentences. Consecutive sentences were proper.
5. The court applied totality by considering the overall sentence rather than placing undue weight on the mechanism used to construct it. The final term was commensurate with the appellant’s criminality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): by [2009] EWCA Crim 1431, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Grimsby: on 12 December 2008, convicted the appellant of racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress and possession of articles for terrorist purposes; imposed consecutive sentences totalling seven years and three months’ imprisonment.