Abdallah & Ors, R. v (Rev 1)

Sentencing guidance for preparation of terrorist acts under Terrorism Act 2006 remains applicable according to its typical levels and should not be applied by detailed factual comparison with other cases. Assistance to others who intend terrorist acts must be assessed by its scale, nature, value, motivation and whether it formed a pattern.

For dangerousness under Criminal Justice Act 2003, “members of the public” includes persons abroad where the further specified offences are capable, by their territorial scope, of causing harm abroad. In preparatory terrorist offending, sentence must reflect both the gravity of the intended acts and how close the offender came to carrying them out. Very grave intended violence does not by itself require life imprisonment where the preparatory steps remained materially incomplete.

The court determined sentence appeals by six offenders convicted of terrorism-related offences, together with the Attorney General’s reference concerning Abdallah’s sentence. The offenders had assisted, planned, attempted, or prepared for travel to Syria to fight for Islamic State, or had failed to disclose information about such activity. Junead Khan had additionally prepared to murder a United States serviceman in England.

The court considered the application of the sentencing guidance in R v Kahar & Ors [2016] EWCA Crim 568, the statutory meaning of “members of the public” for dangerousness purposes, and whether Junead Khan’s conduct justified a life sentence. The central issues were the appropriate sentencing level, dangerousness, and the significance of the proximity of preparatory conduct to the intended terrorist acts.

1. The court dismissed Abdallah’s and Gray’s sentence appeals, refused Shazib Khan’s, Shaukat’s and Moore’s applications for leave to appeal, and allowed Junead Khan’s appeal to the limited extent of quashing his life sentence on count 2. It granted the Attorney General leave to refer Abdallah’s sentence, but did not increase it because of Abdallah’s exceptional physical disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, and the existing extended licence period.

2. The guidance in R v Kahar & Ors [2016] EWCA Crim 568 remained applicable pending Sentencing Council guidance. The sentencing levels describe typical cases. Advocates should not seek to determine the level by close factual comparisons with other decisions. The court applied the guidance to offenders who had assisted others to travel and fight abroad, as well as to those intending personally to travel.

3. Under section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, an offender who assists others to commit terrorist acts is assessed by the number of persons assisted, the nature and value of the assistance, the offender’s motivation, and whether the assistance was isolated or part of a pattern. Abdallah’s coordination of travel, funds and proposed weapons for a group intending to fight in Syria justified a level 4 assessment, notwithstanding that he had not travelled himself.

4. For section 226A(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, “members of the public” includes the public of countries outside the United Kingdom. The issue arises only where the contemplated further specified offences are capable, in view of their territorial scope, of causing harm abroad. The dangerousness findings against Gray and the other relevant offenders were therefore open to the sentencing judges.

5. In assessing preparatory terrorist offending, the court must consider both the gravity of the intended acts and how close the offender came to committing them. Junead Khan had formed an intention to commit a heinous murder, but had not acquired a knife, acted on the bomb-making instructions, or taken steps on the journey near the potential target. A life sentence was not necessary. The court substituted an extended sentence of 20 years’ custody and a five-year extension period on count 2.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — By [2016] EWCA Crim 1868, the court substituted an extended sentence for Junead Khan’s life sentence. It dismissed or refused the remaining sentence challenges and did not increase Abdallah’s sentence on the Attorney General’s reference under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

• Crown Court — The applicants were convicted and sentenced in separate proceedings at the Central Criminal Court or Kingston Crown Court for offences arising from terrorist activity, preparations for terrorist acts, terrorist funding arrangements, or failure to disclose terrorist information.