R v Mohammad Shafiq

In an Attorney General reference against an allegedly unduly lenient sentence, the appellate court intervenes to correct gross errors, recognising that the sentencing judge is best placed to assess the relevant factors. The Children and Young People guideline remains relevant and must be followed when an adult is sentenced for offending committed as a child, unless applying it would be contrary to the interests of justice. Age 18 is not a cliff edge: the adult offence-specific guideline and youth sentencing principles must be considered together where offending straddles that age. A sentence may be lenient yet lawful where the judge properly weighs culpability, mitigation, public protection and youth justice aims, and a community order is an available disposal.

The respondent, aged between 17 and 18 during the offending, pleaded guilty to four offences of collecting terrorist information contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Central Criminal Court imposed concurrent community orders, together with ancillary orders.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, alleging that the sentence was unduly lenient. The challenge concerned the categorisation of the offending under the adult guideline, the application of the Overarching Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People, and whether a custodial sentence was required. The central issue was whether the respondent’s age at the time of the offending permitted a non-custodial sentence.

Reference refused. The sentence was lenient, but the court could not characterise it as unduly lenient.

1. The relevant offending was properly treated as culpability category B and harm category 2 under the adult guideline for collection of terrorist information. The correct category was B2, with a starting point of four years and a range of three to five years. The sentencing judge’s initial reference to B3 was corrected at the slip-rule hearing. The overlap between the B2 and B3 ranges meant that the error did not itself require a different sentence.
2. The Overarching Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People remained relevant although the respondent was an adult at sentence and some offending continued after his eighteenth birthday. R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281; [2023] 1 WLR 1858 established that, when an adult is sentenced for an offence committed as a child, the Children guideline is relevant and must be followed unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. No such contrary case was advanced.
3. Age 18 is not a cliff edge. The court must consider the adult offence-specific guideline together with the principles for sentencing children and young people. The judge properly considered the respondent’s age, immaturity, lack of previous convictions, good character, compliance with bail, guilty pleas and reported traits of Asperger’s Syndrome, alongside the volume and duration of the offending and use of encrypted technology.
4. The mitigation could reduce the sentence to a length capable of suspension. The judge was entitled to conclude, after careful consideration, that a community order with close supervision best protected the public and advanced the youth justice aims. The reference did not establish that custody was mandatory.
5. In an Attorney General reference, the sentencing judge is best placed to assess the relevant factors and the jurisdiction exists to correct gross errors. The court concluded that the judge could properly pass the sentence, although it was lenient. The reference was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 2 July 2026, the court considered the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It held that the sentence was lenient but not unduly lenient and refused the reference: [2026] EWCA Crim 921 .
2. Central Criminal Court — On 12 January 2026, HHJ Munro KC sentenced the respondent to concurrent community orders for four offences of collecting terrorist information, with ancillary orders.