Nugent, R v.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13 May 2021, the Defendant pleaded guilty to 18 counts on an indictment. Counts 1-5 concerned offences of dissemination of terrorist publications under section 2(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 ("the section 2 offences"), while counts 6-18 concerned possession of information likely to be useful to the preparation of an act of terrorism under section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 ("the section 58 offences"). The earliest offending dated from September 2019, with digital documents relating to the section 58 offences found on the Defendant's devices dated April 2020. The relevant sentencing guideline had not been updated to reflect increased maximum penalties for these offences effective from 12 April 2019. The trial judge, Judge Lodder QC, sentenced the Defendant without guideline ranges reflecting the increased maximum penalties. The Solicitor General contended that the judge failed to sufficiently increase the guideline levels to reflect Parliament's intent in raising maximum penalties.

Sentencing occurred on 23 June 2021 at the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames. The judge gave full credit for the Defendant's guilty pleas and did not find him to be a dangerous offender. The judge identified custodial terms of 6 years for the section 2 offences and 5 years for the section 58 offences, which were reduced after credit for plea and personal mitigation to concurrent sentences totaling 42 months custody plus a 1-year extended licence period, resulting in a special custodial sentence of 54 months. Some confusion arose regarding the statutory surcharge order, which was clarified to be £170.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in not sufficiently increasing the guideline sentence levels to reflect the statutory increase in maximum penalties for the section 2 and section 58 terrorism offences.
2. How the increase in maximum penalties should influence sentencing levels and ranges in the absence of updated guidelines.
3. The extent to which the Defendant's mental health conditions should mitigate the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Solicitor General argued that the sentencing judge failed to adequately increase the guideline sentence levels to reflect the Parliament’s purpose in increasing the maximum penalties for the relevant terrorism offences.
• The appellant contended that the sentence imposed was insufficient given the seriousness of the offences and the increased statutory maximum sentences.

Respondent's Arguments

• The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's specific arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing guideline categories applicable to the offences, concluding that the correct classification for the section 2 offences was category A2 (culpability category A with harm category 2) and for the section 58 offences category B2. The sentencing judge had erred in referring to the section 2 offences as category A1 but effectively applied the correct harm assessment by considering the encouragement or assistance as non-specific to particular terrorist acts.

The court noted the difficulty posed by the sentencing guideline not being updated to reflect the increased maximum penalties. It emphasized the principle that courts should reflect Parliament’s intent to strengthen sentences for terrorism offences following statutory increases, even if guidelines have not yet been revised. The court accepted that the sentencing judge was correct to impose concurrent sentences but considered that the sentence for the section 2 offences should have been higher to reflect the increased maximum penalty and the serious aggravating features of the case.

Aggravating factors included the Defendant’s role in administering encrypted Telegram channels with large audiences disseminating extremist, racist, and terrorist materials; the use of multiple social media platforms; and the direct supply of terrorist manuals to an undercover police officer. The court also considered the Defendant’s mental health evidence, noting conflicting psychiatric opinions but concluding that the Defendant was aware of his conduct and that his extremist views were not causally linked to his mental health conditions. The judge’s limited weight given to mental health mitigation was upheld as reasonable.

Ultimately, the court determined that a proper sentence for the section 2 offences would be 8 years before deductions, reflecting the seriousness and aggravating features, from which deductions for plea and personal mitigation would apply.

Holding and Implications

The court QUASHED the sentences on counts 1-5 and SUBSTITUTED concurrent special custodial sentences of 6 years, comprising a custodial term of 5 years and a 1-year extended licence period.

The concurrent sentences on counts 6-18 were not interfered with, as they relate to less serious offences and were accounted for in assessing the section 2 sentences. The decision directly affects the Defendant by increasing the sentence for the dissemination offences to better reflect the increased statutory maximum penalties and the seriousness of the offending. No new legal precedent beyond the application of existing principles regarding sentencing after statutory maximum increases was established.