Benmoukhemis, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 1281 (30 July 2021)

Benmoukhemis, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 1281 (30 July 2021)

The sentencing judge correctly applied the relevant guidelines and principles, considered all mitigation including the applicant's role as sole carer and the impact of COVID-19, and immediate custody was proportionate and necessary given the gravity of the terrorist offences; suspension or community order would not reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Crim 1281
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Khadidja Benmoukhemis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Terrorism Offences, Impact on Sole Carers, Suspension of Custodial Sentences, Article 8 ECHR Rights
Criminal Law Counter Terrorism Sentencing Terrorism Offences Impact on Sole Carers Suspension of Custodial Sentences Article 8 ECHR Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Khadidja Benmoukhemis

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge misapplied authorities regarding sole carers
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider the impact of COVID-19 on custodial sentences
  3. 3 Whether immediate custody was appropriate or sentence should have been suspended

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge correctly applied the relevant guidelines and principles, considered all mitigation including the applicant's role as sole carer and the impact of COVID-19, and immediate custody was proportionate and necessary given the gravity of the terrorist offences; suspension or community order would not reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • No loss of time order made