Connor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted following a non-jury trial of multiple offences related to terrorism and explosions occurring in 2013. The convictions included preparation of terrorist acts, causing explosions likely to endanger life or property, and attempted murder of a police officer. Initially, the Appellant pleaded guilty to related offences in 2017 and was sentenced to an extended custodial term. However, those convictions were quashed on appeal due to concerns about the guilty pleas, resulting in a retrial. The present appeal concerns the sentence imposed after the retrial, where the Appellant received a 20-year imprisonment term with an extended licence period of four years for the attempted murder count, alongside concurrent sentences for other offences. The appeal challenges the manifest excessiveness of the sentence, while the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) contends it was unduly lenient.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 20 years imprisonment for the attempted murder offence was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentence was unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, warranting an increase.
3. The appropriate application of sentencing principles, including aggravating and mitigating factors, in the context of terrorist offences.
4. The relevance and weight to be accorded to the Appellant's physical and mental health in sentencing.
5. The impact, if any, of the COVID-19 pandemic on sentencing considerations.
6. Whether the Appellant met the legal test for dangerousness under the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 2008.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The effective sentence of 20 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
• The judge erred in concluding that the Appellant was a dangerous offender under relevant legal standards.
• The Appellant's mental and physical ill health should have been given greater mitigating weight.
• The sentencing judge improperly identified aggravating and mitigating factors, leading to an unduly harsh sentence.
• The DPP's application under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was argued to be out of time, though this was later not pursued.

DPP's Arguments

• The sentence of 20 years imprisonment was unduly lenient given the gravity of the offences.
• The multiplicity of aggravating features warranted a longer custodial sentence.
• Deterrence is the dominant consideration in terrorist offence sentencing, limiting the weight of personal mitigation.
• The Appellant's ill health did not meet the high threshold required to reduce sentence on medical grounds.
• The sentencing judge's approach to aggravating and mitigating factors was flawed, resulting in an insufficient sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41	Definition of "unduly lenient" sentence and principles guiding section 36 referrals.	Adopted as the foundational test for assessing whether the sentence fell outside the reasonable range.
Attorney General's Reference No 2 of 2002 [2002] NICA 40	Adoption of the unduly lenient sentence test and procedural guidance.	Confirmed the applicability of the test without qualification in Northern Ireland jurisdiction.
R v McCann [1996] NIJB 225	Guideline for sentencing attempted murder of security forces members, generally around 25 years.	Provided the benchmark starting point for sentencing the Appellant’s attempted murder offence.
R v Loughlin [2019] NICA 10	Affirmation of the McCann guideline and principles on culpability and harm in sentencing.	Reinforced the sentencing range and the importance of offender culpability and harm intended.
R v Stewart [2017] NICA 1	Proper approach to starting points, aggravating and mitigating factors, and plea discounts in sentencing.	Guided the court on correctly balancing aggravating and mitigating factors before applying plea discounts.
Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 2006) (McDonald and Others) [2006] NICA 4	Permissibility and threshold for considering physical disability or illness in sentencing.	Set a high threshold for medical mitigation, which the court found the Appellant did not meet.
R v Wynne [1994] (unreported)	Medical reasons rarely justify reducing a sentence for serious offences.	Endorsed the principle that serious offenders cannot expect automatic sentence reduction for health reasons.
R v McConnan [2017] NICA 40	Dominance of deterrence in sentencing terrorist offences and limited weight of personal circumstances.	Supported the court’s emphasis on deterrence over mitigation in terrorist-related sentencing.
R v Stewart [2020] NICA 62	Guidance on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sentencing.	Rejected automatic sentence reduction due to prison conditions during the pandemic, emphasizing case-specific assessment.
HM Advocate v Lindsay [2020] HCJAC 26	Consideration of pandemic-related prison conditions in sentencing.	Supported the view that pandemic conditions are temporary and should not automatically reduce sentences.
R v Beggs [2020] NICC 9	Use of increased credit for guilty pleas during the pandemic under specific circumstances.	Clarified that enhanced plea credit during COVID-19 depends on demonstrable remorse and cooperation.
R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864	Legal standards for assessing dangerousness under sentencing legislation.	Referenced in assessing the trial judge’s conclusion on dangerousness, which was upheld.
R v EB [2010] NICA 40	Framework for evaluating dangerous offender status.	Used to confirm the appropriateness of the trial judge’s evaluation of dangerousness.
Stewart v Chapman [1951] 2 KB 792	Interpretation of time limits for appeals and applications.	Referenced regarding the timeliness of the DPP’s application, but the issue was not pursued.
Zoan v Rouamba [2000] 1 WLR 1509	Interpretation of procedural time limits.	Also cited in relation to the time limit issue, which was reserved for future consideration.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the established sentencing guidelines for attempted murder of security forces members, notably the R v McCann benchmark of approximately 25 years imprisonment. The trial judge’s starting point was 25 years, adjusted to 24 years after considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and ultimately reduced to 20 years. The court scrutinised the identified aggravating features, including the violent political motive, deceit employed, extensive planning, central role in the attacks, multiple episodes, lack of remorse, and an active suspended sentence. It found these factors, especially planning and multiple attacks, to be properly aggravating.

Conversely, the court rejected the mitigating factors relied upon by the trial judge. The Appellant’s mental and physical ill health did not meet the high threshold required to reduce sentence on medical grounds. The lack of sophistication in the attacks was outweighed by the meticulous planning. The Appellant’s limited criminal record and compliance with bail conditions were not considered mitigating under established principles. The court also identified an additional aggravating factor—reckless disregard for the safety of innocent civilians in a residential area.

Balancing these considerations, the court concluded that aggravation outweighed mitigation, and that the appropriate sentence should have been within 25 to 28 years imprisonment. The court dismissed the applicability of double jeopardy as a mitigating factor given the inevitability of a long determinate sentence. The court further upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that the Appellant was a dangerous offender, finding no error in the evaluative judgment.

Regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sentencing, the court endorsed the view that prison conditions related to the pandemic do not warrant automatic sentence reductions and must be assessed carefully. The court noted that increased credit for guilty pleas during the pandemic requires evidence of additional remorse and cooperation, which was not applicable here.

Finally, the court addressed a procedural issue concerning the timeliness of the DPP’s application under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This issue was not pursued by the Appellant at hearing and was reserved for future cases.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the DPP’s application under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and substituted the sentence of 20 years imprisonment with an extended licence period of four years for a sentence of 25 years imprisonment with the same extended licence period for the attempted murder offence. The concurrent sentences for the other offences were affirmed without change. The Appellant’s appeal against sentence was dismissed.

This decision directly increases the custodial sentence for the Appellant, reflecting the court’s view that the original sentence was unduly lenient given the gravity of the offences and the applicable sentencing guidelines. No new legal precedent was created; rather, the court reaffirmed existing principles on sentencing terrorist offences, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the approach to physical health considerations and pandemic-related issues in sentencing.