R v Shabazz Suleman

For sentencing a preparatory terrorism offence, culpability and harm are assessed by reference to the offender’s intended plan and its consequences if successful. The relevant inquiry is whether multiple deaths were risked, not whether they were likely ultimately to occur. Later voluntary desistance remains relevant to the likelihood assessment.

A finding of dangerousness is for the sentencing court after a holistic assessment of all the available material. An appellate court will not ordinarily interfere unless the sentencer applied wrong principles or reached a conclusion not open on the evidence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to preparing terrorist acts contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. At the age of 18, he travelled to Syria intending to join Islamic State and become a sniper. He received weapons training, performed armed guard and Military Police duties, and disseminated propaganda before becoming disillusioned and seeking to leave.

The Recorder of London sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of nine years and six months, less time in custody. He appealed on the grounds that the offence should have been placed at harm level 3 rather than level 2 under the Sentencing Guideline, and that he should not have been found dangerous.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to categorise the offending as category B2 under the applicable Sentencing Guideline. The appellant’s intended role as a sniper involved multiple deaths if carried out. The judge properly considered the likelihood that he would attain that role in light of his subsequent weapons training and armed duties.
2. Following the approach in R v Boular and Boular [2019] EWCA Crim 798, culpability is assessed by reference to what the offender planned to do. The assessment of risk focuses on the consequences had that plan succeeded. The fact that the appellant later changed his mind did not alter his completed intention when he prepared to join Islamic State, though it was relevant to the likelihood assessment.
3. The finding of dangerousness disclosed no error. The ultimate decision belonged to the sentencing court, not to the author of the pre-sentence report. The judge made a holistic assessment of the report, the appellant’s age and immaturity, his inconsistent accounts, his conduct in Syria, and the other evidence before the court.
4. Applying R v Choudhury [2016] EWCA Crim 1341, the Court held that the Recorder had applied the correct principles and had reached a conclusion open to him on the material. The life sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the sentence appeal in [2024] EWCA Crim 804.
• Central Criminal Court: on 26 May 2023, the Recorder of London imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of nine years and six months, less 596 days in custody, following a guilty plea.