Key Facts
- •Nabeela Anjum convicted of two offences of failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000, section 38B).
- •Sentenced to concurrent special custodial sentences of three years (two years' custody and one year's licence).
- •Attorney General's reference for undue leniency and Anjum's appeal for manifestly excessive sentence.
- •Son, Sameer Anjum, involved with Al-Arfat Hassan, who was planning a terrorist attack.
- •Anjum knew about the planned attack but didn't disclose the information to authorities.
- •Anjum's defence was that she wanted to protect her son.
- •Separate proceedings against Hassan and Sameer resulted in guilty pleas to other offences.
- •Tasnia Ahmed, Hassan's girlfriend, received a suspended sentence for similar offences.
Legal Principles
Proper application of the Sentencing Council's definitive guideline for offences under section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Sentencing Council's guideline
Interpretation of 'terrorism' under section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Terrorism Act 2000, section 1
Offence of failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism under section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Terrorism Act 2000, section 38B
Consideration of harm caused and harm that might foreseeably have been caused (Sentencing Code, section 63).
Sentencing Code, section 63
Outcomes
The Attorney General's reference for undue leniency was granted.
The trial judge erred in categorising the offence under the guideline, resulting in an unduly lenient sentence. The court found the correct categorization should have been 1A, resulting in a higher starting point.
Anjum's application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
Even if the judge's categorisation had been correct, the sentence would not have been considered unduly lenient. The court considered the strong mitigating factors already accounted for by the trial judge.
The court chose not to increase the sentence.
The court considered fairness to Anjum in light of similar cases and her severe health problems, leading to the decision not to increase the sentence despite finding it unduly lenient.