Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2016] All ER (D) 75 (Dec)
Neutral Citation: [2016] EWCA Crim 1868
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

Lord Thomas CJ, Treacy LJ and Leggatt J

Representation Rajiv Menon QC and Richard Thomas for the first defendant, A.
  Christopher Henley QC for the second defendant, G.
  Andrew Hall QC for the third defendant, JK.
  Michael Ivers QC for the fourth defendant.
  Rajiv Menon QC and Jacob Bindman for the fifth defendant.
  Ragveer Chand for the sixth defendant.
  Max Hill QC and Barnaby Jameson (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
  Duncan Penny QC (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Attorney General.
Judgment Dates: 8 December 2016

Catchwords

Sentence - Terrorism - Terrorist offences - Sentencing guidance - Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, previously providing sentencing guidance for particular terrorist offences - Present proceedings being heard together to determine further issues arising - Attorney General referring first defendant's sentence to court as unduly lenient - Second and third defendants appealing against sentence - Whether practice of advocates seeking to address court on comparisons between facts of cases should be taken into consideration - Whether, in considering 'dangerousness', statutory phrase 'members of the public' referring only to members of public in United Kingdom - .

The Case

Sentence Terrorism. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the guidance provided in relation to the sentencing of those convicted of offences under s5 of the Terrorism Act2006, contained in RvKahar; RvZiamani and others () (Kahar), continued to apply pending the issue of guidelines by the Sentencing Council. Two further matters of general application were also decided. First, counsels' attempts to contrast the facts in Kahar and other cases, as part of a submission that the present offending fell into a less serious category, was a misconceived argument and should not be attempted. Second, although the territorial scope of the phrase 'members of the public', under s226A(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act2003, was not expressly defined, it had to be intended to include the public in other countries.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.