[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Worrell, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 1431 (14 May 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/1431.html Cite as: [2010] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 27, [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 27, [2009] EWCA Crim 1431

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		Thursday, 14th May 2009

1. THE RECORDER OF KINGSTON-UPON-HULL: On 12th December 2008 in the Crown Court at Grimsby the appellant was convicted before His Honour Judge Reddihough and a jury of two counts. He was sentenced on the same day. Count 1 was racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress and the sentence was 15 months' imprisonment consecutive to count 2, which was a count of possession of articles for terrorist purposes. For that he received a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment. It was therefore a total of 7 years and 3 months' imprisonment, with a direction under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that 390 days he had spent on remand should count towards the sentence. He appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.
2. The appellant espoused an extreme right wing political ideology. He referred to himself as a "white nationalist". Part of his ideology was the compulsory repatriation of the United Kingdom's non-white population.
3. On 24th January 2008 he was arrested and his one bedroomed flat on a council estate in Grimsby was searched. In the flat the police found a significant quantity of racist and right-wing material including books, stickers, DVDs, videos and Nazi memorabilia. The books included a number of manuals about weapons, bombs and how to manufacture improvised or homemade explosives and bombs. Officers also found a quantity of sodium chlorate, weed killer, matches, match heads, lighter fuel and fireworks.
4. It is neither necessary nor desirable to elaborate on the uses to which these otherwise commonplace items might be put. However, one of the items has been mentioned specifically in argument, and it is necessary to use that one example to illustrate the potential seriousness of what was going on. There was evidence at the trial that a large number of match heads had been discovered in this man's flat. Evidence was called from a scientist from the forensic science laboratory that they had found match heads being used in the manufacture of pipe bombs. The scientist could think of no innocent reason for preparing match heads in the way they were here.
5. The appellant's explanation to the police was that in a moment of boredom he chopped the ends of match sticks just for his own amusement. That explanation had been quickly rejected, one suspects by the jury.
6. Within the books that were found there were step-by-step diagrams of how to construct electric circuit detonators and contact boards. The books included titles such as "White Urban Survival Guide". There were three volumes of "The Black Book on Improvised Ammunitions." There was "The Black Book of Arson". Therefore, summarising the position, the appellant had instructions on how to make an improvised explosive device and some of the materials necessary for their manufacturer. He was in possession of fireworks as a ready source of black powder and tampered with them so that they no longer could be used as intended. There was also discovered a small candle with a fuse wire wrapped around it indicating he had experimented to make some sort of time delay mechanism. Various pieces of paper were found within his flat. Written on them was offensive matters such as "Niggers will die in Grimsby" and there was also writing relating to chemicals to be used in bomb making. There were other items which indicated his right wing leanings.
7. It is important to remember that to be guilty of count 2 the Crown had to show not only possession of these various items but that the possession gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the appellant intended the items or some of them to be used for the purposes of the commission, preparation, or instigation of an act of terrorism. Those are not the precise words of the statute but they are the way the statute is to be construed (see the case of R v Zafar [2008] 2 Cr App R 8). It would have been a defence had the defendant established they were possessed for some other reason. It is for these reasons the learned judge in his sentencing remarks said the jury's verdict on count 2 meant that the appellant intended to use some of the items for terrorist purposes in connection with abuse of explosives.
8. The purpose of this offence is to catch terrorists at an early stage of preparation and before they carry their plans into operation. Obviously if they are caught at a later stage different, and possibly more serious charges may be appropriate. This is on offence that carries a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.
9. Turning to count 1, the complainants in relation to count 1 were a mixed race couple, Mr and Mrs Chowdhery. They lived on the same estate as the appellant. She was a white native of Grimsby. He was born in Bangladesh and was an immigrant to this country. They complained to the police they had become the target of racist abuse and harassment during 2007. The harassment went on during that year, month after month. It went into the first few weeks of 2008. It was in the form of stickers being placed on a lamppost immediately adjacent and near to the back gate of the Chowdherys and on the gate itself. The stickers included references to "Don't be a mixed race slut" and National Front and Combat 18 organisations. Stickers identical to most but not all of these were found in the appellant's flat. The Crown's case was that it was the appellant who placed these stickers at the Chowdherys' home. As a result of the appellant's activities the Chowdherys felt intimidated and vulnerable and the tension affected their relationship. They were, understandably, particularly concerned about their daughter's safety.
10. The appellant was born on 27th March 1973. There is a record of convictions going back to 1995. In August 1995 he was sent to prison for 4 year for various offences of robbery and attempted robbery. In 1999 he was before the court for possessing an offensive weapons in public. In 2001 he was before the Grimsby and Cleethorpe Magistrates for having an article with a blade. Later the same year he was before the Great Grimsby Crown Court for possessing written material which was threatening, abusive or insulting and he received a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months.
11. In passing sentence for the present offences the learned judge said:

"In my judgment, it is clear that you had gone at least to the stage of experimentation in furtherance of your intentions; in that you had plainly tampered with fireworks, you had assembled a candle fuse, and you had collected match heads, which, as we could all see, potentially could be used for explosive devices. Furthermore, you had written down the names of chemicals which could be used for the manufacture of explosives and were in possession of at least a modest quantity of such a chemical."

He went on to say:

"However, I do have to bear in mind that you had not actually assembled or started to assemble an explosive device to use in connection with your terrorist intentions. It is indeed fortunate that you were apprehended before you went further along the road to perpetrating terrorist acts using a device or devices about which you had the instruction manuals."

12. The grounds of appeal which have been advanced skilfully and attractively by Mr Harbage QC have been reduced to three. He submitted firstly that the 6 year sentence of imprisonment on count 2 was too long. Secondly, that the sentences should be concurrent rather than consecutive, and thirdly, he relies on the well-known principle of totality.
13. The main points that he has made in support of the first of those propositions must have been well in the mind of the learned judge who had, of course, tried the case. He puts forward, that the appellant was not a threat to national security. He was not part of a conspiracy, or a terrorist cell. He had not actually manufactured an explosive device. Nor had he gone so far as to attempt to manufacture one and he relies strongly on the fact that there was no evidence that any attack was actually planned or imminent.
14. Those are, in our judgment, important considerations. They, as we have said already, were at the forefront of the judge's mind. That is quite clear from what is said in the sentencing remarks. Although we have come to the conclusion that the sentence of 6 years is at the top of the range, we do not think that it can properly be said to be wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
15. The second point is put as follows in the "grounds of appeal":

"Although the two offences are different, they are both manifestations of the appellant's right wing ideology and both were committed over the same time period. As such the general rule is that concurrent sentences are appropriate."

16. This court is less concerned, than was formerly the case, with the mechanism of the construction of total sentences. What really matters after all is whether the total sentence imposed is commensurate with the defendant's criminality rather than how it is made up. Having said that, in our view, the two counts were quite separate types of criminal conduct, albeit they were both manifestations of the appellant's hatred of certain sections of society. We can see nothing wrong in making the sentences consecutive.
17. Therefore we come to the final point taken by Mr Harbage and that is the question of totality. In other words when looked at overall is 7 years and 3 months the appropriate sentence for what this man did? We have come to the conclusion that it is. It cannot be said that the total sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Despite the attract and persuasive argument put forward by Mr Harbage, this appeal is dismissed.