header-logo header-logo

20 June 2025 / Sailesh Mehta , Theo Burges
Issue: 8121 / Categories: Features , Criminal , National security
printer mail-detail

How to sentence a spy

223037
Sailesh Mehta & Theo Burges consider the sentencing of Daniel Khalife & the growing intersection between terrorism & espionage offences
  • An overview of the history and core principles of sentencing in espionage cases.
  • The growing intersection between terrorism and espionage offences.
  • The likelihood that prosecutions in this area will increase significantly, making it essential for practitioners to deepen their understanding of this aspect of the law.

On 3 February 2025, Daniel Khalife was sentenced by Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb to 14 years and three months’ immediate custody. This followed a trial at Woolwich Crown Court from October to November 2024. Following trial, Khalife was found guilty of committing an act prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state, contrary to s 1(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (OSA 1911), and eliciting information about members of the armed forces, contrary to s 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. Khalife pleaded guilty to escaping from lawful custody following the conclusion of his evidence in chief on 11 November 2024.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll