Key Facts
- •Shabaz Suleman (appellant), aged 28, pleaded guilty to preparation of terrorist acts (Terrorism Act 2006, section 5) for attempting to join ISIS in Syria in 2014.
- •He traveled to Turkey with his family, crossed into Syria, and was apprehended by Turkish authorities.
- •He participated in a prisoner exchange with ISIS instead of deportation to the UK.
- •Evidence showed his immersion in ISIS propaganda, sharing of violent imagery, and encouragement of others to join ISIS.
- •In Syria, he served in ISIS military police and performed armed guard duty.
- •He used social media to disseminate ISIS propaganda.
- •After becoming disillusioned, he left ISIS and was eventually arrested in the UK in 2021.
- •The judge sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 9 years and 6 months, less 596 days spent in custody.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for preparation of terrorist acts under section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006.
Sentencing Guideline (effective from 1 October 2022)
Determining dangerousness for sentencing purposes, considering factors such as age, immaturity, and voluntary return.
R v Lang (leading authority on dangerousness)
Appellate court review of dangerousness findings; interference only if incorrect principles were applied or the conclusion was unsupportable.
R v Choudhury [2016] EWCA Crim 1341
Assessment of culpability based on the offender's intended actions and harm, not solely on the outcome.
R v Boular and Boular [2019] EWCA Crim 798
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's approach to categorizing the offence and determining dangerousness was deemed impeccable and justified. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
The judge's categorization of the offence as B2 (culpability B, harm level 2) was upheld.
The court found the judge correctly considered the appellant's intention to become a sniper (risking multiple deaths) and the likelihood of it happening, even though it was ultimately prevented by his change of heart.
The judge's finding of dangerousness was upheld.
The court considered the judge's holistic assessment of the pre-sentence report, the appellant's inconsistent statements, and his overall behaviour. Despite mitigating factors like age and immaturity, the judge's conclusion that the appellant presented a significant risk was deemed justifiable.