R v Oghenochuko Ojiri

Where no offence-specific sentencing guideline exists, the sentencer should apply the general guideline framework and consider whether any proposed comparator is truly analogous. For an offence under section 21A of the Terrorism Act 2000, the terrorist context is relevant to seriousness. Deliberate concealment and deceit materially aggravate a failure to disclose. For an offender of particular concern, a single offence of the described seriousness warrants at least two years’ custody before adjustments. Multiple offences, their duration and concealment may justify a substantial uplift. Mitigation, including an early guilty plea and personal circumstances, must be reflected through a proportionate totality assessment. Limited sector experience is not naivety where the offender understood the obligations and acted for gain.

This was an application for leave to appeal against sentence, referred to the full court because the appellant was the first person identified as sentenced for an offence under section 21A of the Terrorism Act 2000, for which no offence-specific guideline existed.

After pleading guilty to eight offences, the appellant was sentenced by the Central Criminal Court on 6 June 2025 to a Special Custodial Sentence of three years and six months, comprising two years and six months’ custody and a 12-month extended licence. The offences arose from art transactions with a customer whom he believed was involved in funding Hezbollah, coupled with failures to disclose and concealment of the customer’s identity.

The appeal concerned alleged failure to give sufficient weight to naivety, limited experience and other mitigation, and whether R v Swan [2011] EWCA Crim 2275 provided an appropriate sentencing comparison.

Appeal dismissed. Leave was granted because this was the first identified sentencing case under section 21A of the Terrorism Act 2000 and no offence-specific guideline existed.

1. Sentencing framework. The sentencing judge had meticulously applied the general guideline overarching principles, the totality guideline, the guilty plea guideline and the guideline on community and custodial sentences. Where no offence-specific guideline applies, relevant appellate decisions must be considered, but the court must assess whether any comparator is truly analogous.
2. Authorities. R v Swan [2011] EWCA Crim 2275 was of limited assistance. It concerned a different offence, particular facts and an earlier stage of sentencing practice. It would be an error to carry its result across to section 21A offences.
3. Seriousness and culpability. The statutory duty to disclose is engaged by knowledge, suspicion or reasonable grounds for suspicion. Belief that the relevant conduct occurred is near the top of that scale. The fact that the offence is created by the Terrorism Act 2000, and is intended to prevent conduct assisting terrorist activity and to enforce the disclosure system, is relevant to seriousness. Commercial activity designed to evade disclosure and conceal transactions for the benefit of a proscribed terrorist organisation is serious criminal offending. The absence of money moving from the appellant to a terrorist organisation limited his guilt to failures to disclose, but did not remove the seriousness of the offending.
4. Sentence. For a single offence of the kind described by the sentencing judge, at least two years’ custody was appropriate before aggravating and mitigating features were balanced. That referred to the custodial part of the Special Custodial Sentence. The number and duration of the offences, together with deliberate deceit and concealment, required a substantial increase. The early guilty pleas, lack of previous convictions, reputation, remorse, depression and limited experience in the regulated sector justified mitigation. Inexperience did not amount to naivety: the appellant understood his obligations, Ahmad’s activity and the reason for the obligations, and concealed the transactions to obtain financial gain.
5. Suspension and appellate review. Attorney General's Reference (R v John) [2022] EWCA Crim 54 established that a sentence imposed on an offender of particular concern could be suspended only within the relevant two-year limit, including the additional licence period. The custodial term would therefore have to be 12 months or less. The sentence under appeal was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. It resulted from sound findings, proper adjustment for mitigation and a proportionate totality assessment.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) On 29 October 2025, the court granted leave and dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 1489.
2. Central Criminal Court On 6 June 2025, Cheema-Grubb J imposed a Special Custodial Sentence of three years and six months, comprising two years and six months’ custody and a 12-month extended licence, following guilty pleas to eight offences.