Ahmed, R v

Sentences for intentional and repeated terrorism offences will ordinarily be immediate custodial sentences. Seriousness depends on culpability and actual, intended or foreseeable harm. Relevant matters include the duration and persistence of the activity, the offender’s radicalisation, the material’s content and reach, the nature of the audience, and the risk of further indoctrination.

Deterrence is important, but the sentence must remain proportionate to the individual offending and offender. Genuine remorse, voluntary disengagement and a change of mindset may materially mitigate sentence. The court must consider the welfare of children dependent on an offender who is their sole or primary carer. That consideration may reduce a custodial term or justify suspension.

The offender pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to one count of encouraging terrorism and three counts of disseminating terrorist publications, contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006. She had posted material supporting Islamic State in a closed Facebook group over about two months. The material included direct and indirect encouragement of terrorism and links to extremist speeches.

On 7 November 2017, the sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the seriousness of the offences required an immediate custodial sentence despite substantial mitigation, including the effect of custody on the offender’s five children.

Disposition

1. The court granted leave for the reference but declined to interfere with the suspended sentence. It held that the offending could and should in principle have attracted an immediate custodial sentence, but that substituting such a sentence would have had no practical effect.
2. The offending was serious. It was intentional, persistent and committed in support of terrorism. The offender had disseminated material to an expanding closed group of more than 1,000 members, whose members were likely to be receptive to extremist propaganda. The absence of evidence that a recipient took positive terrorist action meant that the harm was not at the highest level. Applying the sentencing approach in R v Rahman & Mohammed [2008] EWCA Crim 1465, and the relevant factors in R v Kahar & Others [2016] EWCA Crim 568, a starting point of about four years’ imprisonment was appropriate.
3. There was, however, powerful mitigation. The offender had previous good character, had pleaded guilty at an early stage, had genuinely shown remorse, and had voluntarily stopped her activity before arrest. Her conduct in custody corroborated a change of mindset. Those matters would have reduced the post-plea custodial term to about 20 months.
4. Under R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214, the court had to consider the position of the offender’s children, for whom she was the sole or primary carer. Their separation and harm during her remand in custody were substantial. A further reduction to reflect their interests would leave little or no further time to serve, since she had already served the equivalent of a sentence slightly under 13 months. The balance therefore favoured the children, and the court exercised its discretion not to vary the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney General reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave but declined to interfere with the sentence: [2018] EWCA Crim 133.
• Central Criminal Court: On 7 November 2017, the offender received concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, after guilty pleas to offences under sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006.