REGINA v Ahmed

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty on 22nd May 2009 at The City Crown Court to two offences: communicating false information contrary to section 114(2) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (count 1), and communicating false information with intent contrary to section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (count 3). Sentencing was adjourned pending psychiatric and pre-sentence reports, with the Appellant returning on 25th October 2009. On that date, Judge Tyrer sentenced the Appellant to 32 months' detention in a young offender institution on count 1 and 16 months' detention on count 3, to be served consecutively, totaling four years. The Appellant appealed these sentences with leave granted by a single judge.

The offences involved hoax calls made by the Appellant on a mobile phone. On 30th July 2008, the Appellant called US authorities, falsely claiming to be a member of the Pakistani Intelligence Agency and alleging a chemical bomb planted at a restaurant in New York City, providing detailed descriptions and threatening imminent detonation. This caused significant emergency responses including evacuation and road closures.

The following day, the Appellant called the Home Office switchboard in The State, again posing as a Pakistani Intelligence Service member, claiming knowledge of a chemical bomb in the Westminster area with detailed descriptions and planned detonation at Marylebone Station. He suggested a meeting with authorities and requested significant manpower.

Initially, the calls were taken seriously, but suspicion arose leading to a police investigation. The calls were traced to SIM cards linked to the Appellant, who initially denied but then admitted involvement, assisting police in locating the SIM card used.

The Appellant was 19 at the time of the offences and had prior convictions including possession of cannabis, wasting police time, dishonesty, and racially aggravated harassment. He had served previous detention totaling 22 weeks.

The Appellant stated he made the hoax calls while intoxicated on cannabis and out of boredom, claiming they were jokes but acknowledging he fabricated details to make the calls appear credible. The pre-sentence report author noted attempts to minimize his actions and highlighted a history of providing false information, assessing him as posing a significant risk of serious harm if an indeterminate sentence had been available.

A psychiatric report diagnosed the Appellant with conduct disorder and dissocial personality disorder, aggravated by drug misuse. The report noted that custodial detention could worsen his condition but did not warrant detention under the Mental Health Act.

Initially pleading not guilty, the Appellant changed his plea to guilty shortly before trial. Judge Tyrer gave full credit for the plea, noting the Appellant's age, immaturity, lack of insight, and psychiatric condition as mitigating factors. The judge recognized the offences as pranks but considered that deterrence was a key sentencing principle.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing starting point of approximately six years for the combined offences was appropriate.
2. What the appropriate sentence should be, considering the Appellant's guilty plea, psychiatric condition, age, and previous convictions.
3. The role of deterrence in sentencing for offences of communicating false information related to terrorism threats.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge’s starting point of six years was excessive given the maximum sentence for each offence was seven years and concurrent sentencing was considered.
• Reference to authorities suggests the starting point for such offences is usually much lower than that adopted by the judge.
• Comparison to a more serious precedent case where a four-year sentence was upheld indicates the current four-year sentence was disproportionate.

Court's Consideration of Authorities

• Cases cited included Cook [2006] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 106, Phillipson [2008] 2 CrAppR (S) 110, McMenemy [2009] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 57, and Mason [2002] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 29.
• Cook involved a reduced sentence from three to two years for a similar offence committed by a young person with mental health issues.
• The present case was considered more serious due to multiple offences, history of hoax calls, and detailed false information given to authorities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing starting point, noting the judge appeared to take approximately six years as the starting point, which was close to the maximum possible sentence for concurrent terms. This was considered excessive compared to usual sentencing practice for such offences. The court acknowledged the Appellant's guilty plea, psychiatric condition, age, immaturity, and previous convictions as mitigating factors. The court also emphasized the seriousness of the offences, particularly the detailed and credible nature of the hoax calls and the Appellant's history of similar conduct. The principle of deterrence was recognized as important in sentencing for these offences.

The court concluded that an appropriate sentence would be a total of three years' detention, achieved by reducing the sentence on count 1 to 30 months and count 3 to six months, to be served consecutively. This adjustment reflected a balance between the seriousness of the offences and mitigating factors.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was ALLOWED to the extent that the sentences were reduced. The sentence on count 1 was reduced to 30 months' detention, and the sentence on count 3 was reduced to six months' detention, with the terms to be served consecutively, resulting in a total of three years' detention.

The decision directly affects the Appellant by reducing the custodial sentence imposed. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling; rather, it clarified the appropriate sentencing range for offences of communicating false information of this nature, emphasizing proportionality and the importance of considering mitigating factors including psychiatric conditions and guilty pleas.