Abid, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted after a summary trial before the Magistrates' Court and committed for sentence on 22 December 2023. His appeal against conviction was dismissed at the Central Criminal Court on 23 April 2024. On 26 June 2024 the Appellant was sentenced for two breaches of notification requirements contrary to sections 47 and 54 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, resulting in a special custodial sentence of three years and three months, comprising a custodial term of two years three months and an extended licence period of one year under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

The Appellant applied for an extension of time of 392 days and for leave to appeal against sentence; those applications were referred to the full court. A single judge directed that, if granted, leave and any extension of time would be considered at the same hearing. The Appellant acted in person. The court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence and refused the extension of time.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an extension of time should be granted for the Appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing culpability and harm, failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation, or otherwise imposed a sentence that was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
4. Whether fresh evidence (character references and a psychiatric report) should be admitted on appeal.
5. Whether a pre-sentence report was necessary and its absence renders the sentence unsafe.
6. Whether the imposition of an extended licence period under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
7. Whether the custody threshold was crossed for the index offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred in assessing culpability and harm and was wrong to find intentional failure to provide required information.
• The judge misapplied R v Roddis.
• The judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating features, including the Appellant's age, caring responsibilities and mental health (an anxiety disorder).
• The judge should have obtained a pre-sentence report before sentencing.
• The extended licence period is disproportionate and unlawful under the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 5, 6, 8 and 14), and a declaration of incompatibility should be made.
• Fresh evidence (character references and a psychiatric report) should be admitted on appeal.
• The custody threshold was not passed and the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution referred the sentencing judge to R v Roddis in a sentencing note and supported a firm, deterrent sentence in light of the gravity of terrorism-related offences and previous convictions.
• The prosecution relied on the General guideline: overarching principles where no offence-specific guideline exists for section 54 of the 2008 Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed procedural and substantive points in sequence. It found no merit in any application for adjournment and concluded the Appellant had not been prejudiced by the procedural timeline. The court determined that the Appellant had ample opportunity to obtain fresh evidence (character references and expert psychiatric evidence) prior to the hearing and that the Appellant had set and missed deadlines set by the Court of Appeal Office. There was no adequate explanation for the delay in obtaining such evidence or in seeking transcripts beyond what had been reasonably available.

On the merits of the sentencing challenge, the court examined the facts: the Appellant's earlier conviction under section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000 (failure to disclose serious terrorism matters), the imposition of Part 4 notification requirements, and the specific breaches (failure to notify bank account number and sort code for a Company A account and failure to notify loss of use of a vehicle). The court accepted the Crown Court judge's findings that the Appellant deliberately failed to provide required information; those findings were open to the sentencing judge who had heard the evidence and the Appellant's testimony.

The court considered sentencing principles: the absence of offence-specific guidelines for section 54 of the 2008 Act meant the judge properly applied the General guideline: overarching principles and the guideline on totality. The judge's assessment of high culpability (deliberate, sustained concealment and multiple breaches) and medium-high harm (potential and foreseeable harm to public safety through non-compliance with notification requirements) was supported by the facts and applicable statutory principles, including section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Regarding pre-sentence reports, the court found no substance in the criticism that the Crown Court judge erred in not ordering one; it was not necessary to determine the custodial threshold or the appropriate sentence length. The court also considered the probation progress report, noting concerns about the Appellant's candour and engagement and the absence of any prison medical mental-health report.

On Convention challenges to the extended licence period under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the court held that extended licence periods are preventative measures Parliament provided for these offenders, not punitive measures amounting to detention; there was nothing to suggest licence conditions would be so onerous as to amount to detention outside formal custody. The court found no Strasbourg or domestic authority to support the Appellant's late-added incompatibility claim and declined to permit that late point to be taken.

Finally, the court concluded there was no real prospect of injustice that would justify extending time for the leave application: the substantial and unexplained delay of 392 days could only be overcome if the appeal had real merit, which the court did not find. The sentencing exercise was within principled bounds and not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The applications for leave to appeal against sentence and for an extension of time were refused.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed and no extension of time is granted. The court treated the sentencing decision as a firm but lawful exercise of discretion, applying established guidelines and precedent; it did not set or change wider sentencing law or establish a new precedent.