R v Nicholas Ian Roddis

A deliberate and repeated failure to comply with counter-terrorism notification requirements may properly attract a firm and deterrent custodial sentence. The seriousness of the offender’s earlier terrorism offending and the public-safety purpose of the requirements may materially distinguish such offending from breaches of sexual-offence notification requirements or a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, despite a shared statutory maximum.

On the facts, a three-year sentence for five notification failures, and a total sentence of four years after partial activation of a suspended sentence, were not arguably manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had adequately applied totality.

The applicant was sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court on 28 April 2023 to four years’ imprisonment for stalking, possession of ammunition, and five failures to notify information required under Counter Terrorism Act 2008 s.54. Seven months of an earlier suspended sentence for a weapons offence were activated consecutively.

The notification obligations followed a 2007 conviction for planting an imitation bomb on a bus and associated terrorism-related material found at the applicant’s home. He had failed to notify four mobile phones and a bank card, and was convicted of those offences in the magistrates’ court before being committed for sentence.

After the single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application. He contended that the three-year notification sentence was manifestly excessive and that the overall sentence breached totality.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court entirely agreed with the single judge’s reasons and held that none disclosed an arguable sentencing error.

2. The applicant’s proposed analogy with failures to comply with Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.91 notification requirements, or with breaches of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, did not assist. The fact that an offence has the same statutory maximum does not require equivalence for sentencing purposes. The applicant’s earlier serious terrorism offending and the public-safety importance of compliance with counter-terrorism notification requirements were material distinguishing features.

3. The applicant knowingly and wilfully failed to comply on five occasions. Together with the aggravating features, including offending on bail, offending during a suspended sentence, and relevant antecedents, a firm and deterrent sentence of three years for the notification offences was not arguably excessive.

4. The separate consecutive sentences for ammunition and stalking, and partial activation of the suspended sentence, were also appropriate. The sentencing judge had repeatedly considered totality and made adjustments for it. A total of four years’ imprisonment was not arguably excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed in [2024] EWCA Crim 35, after the court agreed with the single judge’s refusal of leave.

• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 28 April 2023, the applicant was sentenced to a total of four years’ imprisonment.

• Sheffield Magistrates’ Court: The applicant was convicted of the notification offences and committed to the Crown Court for sentence.