Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - collection of terrorist information.

[2015]JRC055

Royal Court

(Samedi)

13 March 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Mark Alexander Harding

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  21. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant downloaded two magazines that were produced by Al Qaeda.  Both publications contained bomb-making articles.  One of the articles related to the construction of pressure cooker bombs that would enable a person to build a viable device.  These sorts of bombs were used in the 2013 attack at the Boston Marathon.  The bomb making articles formed the basis of two counts of possession of information likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism.  The defendant had become obsessed with Islamic extremism during the summer of 2014.  His computer contained video footage and numerous images related to ISIS and the beheading of western hostages.  The defendant had posted 5,000 messages to an internet chat room in support of ISS and its actions. 

Details of Mitigation:

The defendant's obsession was the result of his autism.  He did not in fact hold extremist views but rather was "acting out".  This case was all about the defendant's medical condition.  Good character and guilty pleas. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total: 18 months' Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of the computer sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Total: An 18 month Probation Order.

All offending material to be wiped from the computer by the Police and the computer to then be returned to the defendant ordered.  

H. Sharp, Solicitor General for the Attorney General.

Advocate M. L. Preston for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        You downloaded two magazines produced by Al Qaeda which included information on how to make bombs.  Subsequently you posted comments on this chat line we have heard about under a false name, which appeared to support the activities of ISIS, including the beheading of hostages. 

2.        Now in England the Courts have made it very clear that a prison sentence is normally to be imposed for such offences.  The Solicitor-General has referred us to a number of English decisions, some of them not dissimilar to the facts of this case but without the medical issue.  There is no reason whatever, in our view, for Jersey to adopt a more lenient approach than England and we therefore confirm that useful guidance is likely to be obtained from the English levels of sentencing.  So we therefore agree with the Solicitor-General that the starting point is that persons convicted of terrorist offences must expect substantial sentences in order to serve as a deterrent to others and to mark the extreme seriousness of the criminality involved in terrorist activity. 

3.        But offences such as those under Article 53 may be committed in an almost infinite variety of ways and so care must be taken to ensure that the sentence is not disproportionate to the facts of the particular case. 

4.        The Crown accepts that this case is very different.  It is clear from the report of the psychologist that you suffer from Autistic Spectrum Disorder (formerly known as Asperger's Syndrome) and what you did on this occasion was a form of acting out your anger and frustration.  The Crown accepts that you have not been radicalised and you do not personally hold the extremist views that you expressed through your character on the internet.  It was therefore a form of role play.  So in other words, as your Advocate has said, this is not, in reality, a case about terrorism.  It is a case about a 21 year old, of good character, with many good qualities and level of intelligence, with a very supportive family, who has an autistic disorder which commonly leads to obsessional behaviour as in this case.  The very detailed psychological report we have received and the probation report all recommend treatment.  The Crown agrees with that recommendation and that that is the appropriate course; and you have, of course, already served the equivalent of 7 months' imprisonment by way of custodial remand. 

5.        The Court agrees that this is the right way of disposing of the case.  We are going to place you on probation for 18 months.  What that means is that you must do as you are directed by your probation officer.  In particular it means that he or she will be telling you to go on this course of treatment and you must do so, because if you do not then you can be brought back and punished.  So you must do what the probation officer says and, provided that is so, we hope very much never to see you again before the Court. 

6.        The final matter is forfeiture.  The Court is minded not to order forfeiture provided that the machine is wiped of all the offending material.  We are not sure that we have the power to order that, so we are hoping the defendant is going to agree to that being done before it is returned to him [the defendant agrees].  Very well, on that basis then we will not order forfeiture; the defendant can have his computer back but the police are authorised to wipe from it any of the offending material that has been referred to in this case. 

Authorities

Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002.

R v Rahman and Mohammed [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 70.