Ali, R v

The recommended reduction for an offender aged 15 to 17 is not a mechanical entitlement. A sentencing judge may select a lower reduction where the offender’s leading role, entrenched beliefs, lack of insight and continuing motivation demonstrate maturity and resolution of purpose inconsistent with his chronological age.

A properly assessed age reduction is not an impermissible inflation of sentence merely because it leaves a term which permits an extended sentence. Once the custodial term is lawfully fixed, a finding of dangerousness and an extended licence may follow. The assessment remains one for the sentencing judge’s discretion.

The appellant, aged 17, pleaded guilty to preparing terrorist acts contrary to section 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006. He had made preparations, with another, to travel through Turkey to Syria to join armed jihadist groups.

At the Central Criminal Court, the judge treated the offending as level 5 under the guidance in R v Mohammed Abdul Kahar [2016] EWCA Crim 528. Starting from an adult sentence of seven years, the judge allowed a 25% reduction for age, imposed detention for four years and two months, and added an extended licence of four years after finding dangerousness.

The appeal challenged the reduced youth discount and contended that it had been set so as to enable an extended sentence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to reduce the suggested age discount to 25%. Although the judge could have expressed the reasoning more felicitously, the result fell within the sentencing discretion.

2. The guideline for children and young people required proper weight to age, welfare, rehabilitation and custody as a last resort. It did not require a fixed reduction. The appellant’s leading role, deep and extensive radicalisation, lack of insight and ongoing motivation showed a maturity and resolution of purpose which belied his chronological age. He was also only days from his eighteenth birthday when sentenced.

3. The court rejected the contention that the judge had artificially withheld a larger reduction merely to permit an extended sentence. The reduced discount reflected the appellant’s personal maturity and culpability, rather than a device to increase the term for public protection. The principle relied upon from R v Filor [2012] EWCA Crim 850 therefore did not govern the calculation.

4. The judge had appropriately used the level 5 guidance in R v Mohammed Abdul Kahar [2016] EWCA Crim 528 as the adult sentencing starting point. Given the properly calculated custodial term, the judge was entitled to find dangerousness and impose the extended licence. Viewed as a whole, the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the extended sentence.

• Central Criminal Court: on 3 November 2017, imposed detention for four years and two months with an extended licence period of four years following the appellant’s guilty plea.