R v Shabazz Suleman

R v Shabazz Suleman

The sentencing judge correctly categorised the offence as B2 under the Sentencing Guideline, properly assessed harm and culpability, and was entitled to find the appellant dangerous and impose a life sentence with a minimum term. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

Parties
Appellant: Shabazz Suleman; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Preparation of Terrorist Acts, Sentencing Guidelines, Dangerousness Assessment
Criminal Law Counter Terrorism Preparation of Terrorist Acts Sentencing Guidelines Dangerousness Assessment

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shabazz Suleman

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the Sentencing Guideline in categorising the offence
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in finding the appellant dangerous and imposing a life sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge correctly categorised the offence as B2 under the Sentencing Guideline, properly assessed harm and culpability, and was entitled to find the appellant dangerous and impose a life sentence with a minimum term. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 9 years and 6 months, less 596 days spent in custody, upheld.