R v Alan Murphy

For an offence involving an explosive substance which is not terrorist in character, a terrorism-only sentencing guideline may still provide an appropriate starting point. The sentence must be adjusted for the absence of a terrorist connection. The extent of that adjustment is fact-sensitive and depends on the shared terrorism characteristics, the extent of the criminality and the nature of the public risk. Foreseeable harm may be considered when assessing seriousness, even where the offender did not intend that harm. A sentencing judge need not quantify every adjustment, provided the route to the final sentence is adequately explained.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Preston to possessing an explosive substance with intent to cause serious injury to property, two imitation firearms offences and possession of an article with a blade or point. He was sentenced to an extended sentence of 20 years for the explosive-substance offence, with concurrent sentences for the other offences. He appealed against sentence with leave.

The appeal concerned whether the terrorism-only guideline could provide the starting point for a non-terrorist case, the adjustment required for the absence of a terrorist connection, the treatment of foreseeable risk of death, and the adequacy of the sentencing judge’s explanation.

Appeal dismissed. The extended sentence of 20 years was upheld.

1. The sentencing judge was entitled to take the explosive-substance offence as the lead offence, reflect the total criminality in that sentence and impose concurrent sentences for the other counts. He was not required to identify precisely at every stage the amount of each upward or downward adjustment. It was sufficient that he explained how he reached the final figure.
2. The judge had not ignored the 16-year starting point. He adopted it before considering the greater seriousness arising from the risk of death and the aggravating and mitigating features.
3. In a non-terrorist case, the terrorism-only guideline for offences under section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 may provide an appropriate starting point. The absence of a terrorist connection requires a fact-sensitive adjustment. The relevant considerations are the extent to which the case shares terrorism characteristics, the extent of the criminality and the nature of the public risk. The court approved the judge’s reliance on R v Muhammed [2017] EWCA Crim 1832.
4. Under section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020, foreseeable harm may be considered alongside harm caused or intended. The judge was entitled to give particular weight to the risk of injury and death created by the viable device, even though the appellant did not intend that outcome.
5. Although the absence of a relevant ideology was a significant difference from terrorism offending, the risk to life, injury and property justified treating the competing considerations as cancelling each other out. The judge was then entitled to increase the sentence by four years for the aggravating and mitigating features and to apply a 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea.

None of the grounds of appeal had merit. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 8 July 2025, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the extended sentence of 20 years: [2025] EWCA Crim 992.
2. Crown Court at Preston: On 22 August 2024, HHJ Flewitt KC imposed the extended sentence for the explosive-substance offence, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.