R. v Kahar (Mohammed Abdul); R. v Ziamani (Brusthom); R. v Eshati (Abdurraouf); R. v Rashid (Yahya); R. v Ozcelik (Silhan); R. v Khan (Sana)

In R. v Kahar (Mohammed Abdul); R. v Ziamani (Brusthom); R. v Eshati (Abdurraouf); R. v Rashid (Yahya); R. v Ozcelik (Silhan); R. v Khan (Sana), the Court of Appeal for the Criminal Division held that prior to dealing with the Reference and the other appeals, the court should give general guidance o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Criminal law review 2016-09 (9), p.670
Main Author: Ashworth, Andrew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Criminal sentences
Federal court decisions
Terrorism
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In R. v Kahar (Mohammed Abdul); R. v Ziamani (Brusthom); R. v Eshati (Abdurraouf); R. v Rashid (Yahya); R. v Ozcelik (Silhan); R. v Khan (Sana), the Court of Appeal for the Criminal Division held that prior to dealing with the Reference and the other appeals, the court should give general guidance on sentencing for offences under TA 2006 s.5. Among other things, Ashworth comments that the court held that not only had the trial judge under-estimated the seriousness of the overall criminality but that concurrent sentences were not the appropriate way of structuring the sentence, since such sentences failed to emphasize the relative seriousness of the offences of inviting support for a proscribed organization.
ISSN:0011-135X