header-logo header-logo

Judges given guideline on terrorism sentencing

23 October 2019
Issue: 7861 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
Terrorist supporters face tougher sentences, under proposals put forward by the Sentencing Council in response to legislative change.

In a consultation published this week, ‘Terrorism offences guideline’, the council proposes longer sentences for the ‘encouragement of terrorism’, ‘failure to disclose information about acts of terrorism’ and ‘collection of terrorist information’. The proposals reflect increased statutory maximum sentences introduced by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019.

The council also proposes distinguishing between offenders in a position of authority or influence who directly invite support for a proscribed organisation, and one who is reckless when expressing supportive views.

Sentencing guidelines must be followed, unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interest of justice to do so. The consultation ends on 3 December 2019, and the changes would come into effect in early 2020.

Sentencing Council member Mr Justice Goose said: ‘Terrorism offences are extremely serious and can cover a wide range of factual circumstances, making them difficult and sensitive offences to sentence. For this reason, the Council is keen to ensure that the guidelines are kept up to date and fit for purpose.’

Issue: 7861 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll