Alamgir & Ors, R. v

Sentencing for encouraging support for a proscribed organisation under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 must reflect seriousness, assessed through culpability and harm. Culpability includes the offender’s authority or influence, persistence, activity, and the size and character of the intended audience. Harm includes support gained or likely to be gained.

The absence of direct encouragement of a particular violent act, or of a proved link between a speech and subsequent violence, prevents an offence from falling within the highest category. It does not remove its inherent seriousness. Deliberately addressing a selected and receptive live audience may substantially aggravate the offending. Rehabilitation will usually carry significant weight only at the lowest levels of offending.

The appellants were convicted at the Central Criminal Court of offences of encouraging support for Isis, a proscribed organisation, contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Khan was also convicted of arranging a meeting to support a proscribed organisation. Choudry was convicted after a retrial.

The convictions arose from speeches delivered at planned Ramadan meetings in Luton in 2015. The prosecution contended, and the juries found, that the speeches encouraged support for Isis. Alamgir, Bashir and Khan renewed sentence applications after refusal by the single judge. Choudry appealed with leave against his four-year sentence.

The central issue was whether the individual custodial terms were manifestly excessive, having regard to the speeches, the selected audiences, the appellants’ roles and histories, and their personal mitigation.

1. Choudry’s appeal was dismissed and the renewed sentence applications of Alamgir, Bashir and Khan were refused. None of the sentences was manifestly excessive.

2. For a section 12 offence, sentencing must proceed by assessing seriousness through culpability and harm. Culpability includes authority or influence within a group, persistence in seeking support, the activity used, and the size and nature of the audience. Harm includes the support actually gained or likely to be gained. The court followed R v Kahar and Others [2016] EWCA Crim 568: proscription itself establishes that an organisation is concerned in terrorism, and there is no comparative ranking of proscribed organisations by cause or aims.

3. The lack of direct encouragement of a specified act of violence, and the absence of proof that a listener committed terrorism because of a speech, were relevant but did not make the offences minor. An invitation deliberately intended to encourage support for a proscribed organisation is inherently grave. These planned speeches were made to selected live audiences, including persons who might already have been radicalised or particularly receptive. The judge was entitled to regard that setting as potentially more influential than a less targeted internet communication. The offending was therefore at a mid-level of gravity before individual culpability and mitigation were considered.

4. The sentencing judge could consider the totality of the trial evidence to assess each offender’s radicalisation, commitment and culpability. He did not sentence them for uncharged conduct or for others’ conduct. Rehabilitation remained relevant, but would ordinarily carry significant weight only for low-level offending by, for example, a naïve, coerced or impressionable young person of good character.

5. Failure to denounce Isis at trial could not aggravate sentence. A genuine earlier change of mindset might mitigate, but a denunciation at trial or shortly before sentence would normally carry little weight. The judge was entitled to give limited weight to the material said to show Choudry’s change of view.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed Choudry’s appeal against a four-year sentence and refused the renewed sentence applications of Alamgir, Bashir and Khan.
• Central Criminal Court — on 10 February 2017, imposed custodial sentences for offences contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000; Choudry had been convicted after a retrial.