R v Mohammed Shakiel Yasin

For disseminating terrorist publications, harm may be assessed by the publication’s provision of instruction for specific terrorist activity endangering life. Limited distribution, and the absence of evidence that recipients acted on the publication, do not prevent a finding of high harm.

An intentional incitement, coupled with a position of religious authority or influence, may justify the highest culpability category. A sentencing judge may impose concurrent sentences that reflect the criminality of the course of offending as a whole. A finding of dangerousness is available where the evidence provides an ample basis for concluding that the offender presents a risk of serious harm, notwithstanding a low assessed risk of reoffending.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Leeds of three offences of disseminating a terrorist publication contrary to section 2(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2006. He had sent two videos by WhatsApp which encouraged terrorist violence.

The sentencing judge imposed concurrent special custodial sentences of seven years, comprising six years’ custody and one year’s extended licence. The judge found the applicant dangerous and treated two counts as category 1A under the Terrorism Offences Definitive Guideline.

The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that the dangerousness finding, guideline categorisation, aggravation assessment and total sentence were wrong or manifestly excessive.

1. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court also refused an extension of time because, given the absence of an arguable sentencing challenge, an extension would serve no purpose.

2. The finding of dangerousness was plainly open to the sentencing judge. The judge had presided over the trial and had ample evidence bearing on the applicant’s extremist views, associations, conduct, influence over others and continuing susceptibility to radicalisation. The pre-sentence report’s assessment of a low risk of reoffending did not prevent a finding of a high risk of serious harm. The conclusion was therefore not arguable.

3. The six-year custodial element was within the proper sentencing range. For counts 3 and 5, the jury’s finding of intentional encouragement, the applicant’s religious influence over the recipients, and the video’s clear incitement to attack apostates with a meat cleaver supported culpability A and harm category 1. The limited distribution of the video was immaterial to that harm assessment. Lack of evidence that a recipient acted on the encouragement was relevant only as an additional possible indicator of high harm; it was not determinative.

4. The judge was entitled to treat the relationship with the applicant’s daughter as one of trust and to take account of his prominence in his religious community. Although the criticism of treating WhatsApp as encrypted communications had force, it was not material to the sentence. Concurrent sentences could properly reflect the whole criminality of three offences, two of particular seriousness.

5. The offences were paradigm examples of grave offences under section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006. The total sentence properly reflected the course of offending and was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2022] EWCA Crim 853, the court refused leave to appeal against sentence and refused an extension of time to renew the application.
• Crown Court at Leeds: On 16 July 2021, the applicant was convicted of three offences contrary to section 2(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2006. On 24 August 2021, he received concurrent special custodial sentences of seven years.