Ahmad, R v

Full credit for a guilty plea is reserved for a plea entered at the first available opportunity. Where an offender could have indicated a plea to the principal count earlier, the sentencing judge may reduce the credit and has a discretionary assessment of the appropriate level.

Dangerousness for an extended sentence is ultimately a judicial assessment. A pre-sentence report assists that assessment but does not displace the judge’s duty to evaluate the facts. Online solicitation to murder identified Members of Parliament, coupled with information facilitating attack, properly attracts grave sentencing treatment because it attacks democratic access to elected representatives.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Bristol to five offences, including soliciting the murder of Members of Parliament who had voted for the Iraq war. He had placed online material identifying the Members, linking to their personal details, and advising how and where they could be attacked. He also possessed terrorist publications and had published material intended to stir up religious hatred.

Royce J imposed an extended sentence of 17 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a five-year extension period. A single judge refused leave to appeal. On the renewed application, the applicant challenged the guilty-plea reduction, the treatment of mitigation, the finding of dangerousness, and the assessment of seriousness by comparison with other terrorist-sentencing authorities.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The 17-year extended sentence was entirely appropriate for the criminality involved.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to allow a 25% reduction for the guilty pleas. Full credit is available only where a defendant takes the first available opportunity to plead guilty. The applicant could have indicated a plea to the principal count earlier, even if other matters remained unresolved. The level of reduction thereafter was a matter for the judge’s judgment and discretion.

3. The judge had taken proper account of the mitigating features, including the applicant’s age, good character, personal background, admissions and the limited period of the gravest conduct. The Court of Appeal rejected the contention that mitigation had not received full attention.

4. The applicant’s conduct justified the finding that he was dangerous for the purposes of an extended sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The sentencing judge, rather than the report writer, made the ultimate assessment. The judge could have reached that conclusion even if the pre-sentence report had differed; in fact, the report supported it.

5. The central offence was not an idle threat or a joke. The applicant intended that Members of Parliament should be killed, identified potential victims, provided means of locating them, and directed readers towards acquiring knives. The conduct exploited the necessary openness of constituency surgeries and therefore attacked an essential part of democratic government. The judge’s approach to seriousness was consistent with the relevant sentencing authorities.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2012] EWCA Crim 959.

• Court of Appeal (single judge): Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

• Crown Court at Bristol: Following guilty pleas, Royce J imposed an extended sentence of 17 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.