Ahmed, R v

Sentences for false bomb information must include deterrence, but must remain proportionate to sentences normally imposed for comparable offending. Repetition, a history of hoax calls, and detailed information designed to give a threat credibility may materially aggravate the offence. A sentencing court must also give proper credit for an early effective admission and relevant personal mitigation.

Where the presumed starting point is markedly out of kilter with comparable sentencing, the Court of Appeal may substitute consecutive terms that reflect both the seriousness of distinct offences and the appropriate total sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Aylesbury Crown Court to communicating false information under section 114(2) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and to communicating false information with intent under section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

He had made detailed hoax calls on consecutive days alleging chemical bombs in New York and London. The calls caused a substantial emergency response in New York. Although he admitted the calls from an early stage, his formal guilty pleas followed an initial not-guilty plea. Psychiatric evidence identified conduct and dissocial personality disorders aggravated by drug misuse.

The Crown Court imposed consecutive terms of 32 and 16 months’ detention in a young offender institution, totalling four years. The appeal challenged the length of the sentences, particularly the judge’s presumed starting point.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court reduced the sentence on count 1 to 30 months’ detention and the sentence on count 3 to six months’ detention, to run consecutively. The substituted total was therefore three years’ detention.

2. Deterrence was properly relevant to sentencing detailed hoax bomb reports. The offending was serious because the appellant made threats on two consecutive days, had previously made hoax calls, and deliberately supplied details intended to make the reports credible. The New York call also led to a significant emergency response.

3. Those features distinguished Cook [2006] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 106, where a three-year sentence for one false bomb report was reduced to two years. They did not, however, justify the sentencing judge’s presumed concurrent starting point of about six years. That starting point was very long and out of kilter with sentences normally imposed for offending of this kind.

4. The court gave effect to the mitigation accepted below: the appellant’s age, immaturity, lack of insight and psychiatric condition, and full credit for his guilty pleas because he had substantially admitted the conduct from the outset. Consecutive terms remained appropriate for the two distinct offences, but a total of three years properly reflected the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the sentence appeal and substituted consecutive terms totalling three years’ detention: [2010] EWCA Crim 366.
• Aylesbury Crown Court — following guilty pleas, imposed consecutive terms of 32 months and 16 months’ detention in a young offender institution, totalling four years.