Boular & Boular [2019] EWCA Crim 798; [2019] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 41

The applicants were sisters charged with offences of engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism. RB pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to s5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 in respect of an intent to commit an attack using knives or other weapons in the UK. SB was convicted of two offences contrary to s5 by conducting a relationship with an IS fighter, making plans to travel to Syria, communicating with an IS fighter and arranging to receive weapons in order to conduct an attack on the UK and receiving instructions on how to train and use weapons. RB was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years, SB to custody for life with a minimum term of 13 years.

RB applied for leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that the judge erred in finding she was dangerous, wrongly categorised her role as leading and gave insufficient weight to the mitigation. The grounds were rejected; she took over when her younger sister was arrested and from then she played a leading role, it is “fallacious to assume there can be only one leading role per offence”. The two reports obtained in RB did not specifically address the criteria for a finding of dangerousness, the judge was entitled to disagree with their views as to whether RB could and would be de-radicalised and entitled to find she was a dangerous offender. RB had been a victim of an attempted trafficking, indoctrination and was exposed to the abusive behaviour of her father toward her mother, the Court took the view that the judge clearly took these matters into account and her application was refused.

SB accepted the life sentence but challenged the categorisation of the offences and argued insufficient weight was given to the mitigating factors. She had been exposed to radicalisation at a young age and was the victim of sexual grooming. It was argued that she did not play a leading role as she was subordinate to the influence of the IS fighter she was in contact with. The Court did not accept that she was not playing a leading role, regardless of whether or not the fighter was also to play a leading role in the commission of the planned offence. It was accepted there may be difficulties in her travelling to Syria undetected, but she had shown herself to be very determined. It was argued that as SB was actually communicating with members of the Security Services the attack would never be carried out, however, the fact that she was being monitored did not reduce her culpability.

SB was 15 at the start of the indictment period and had an unhappy history of grooming and exploitation, it was submitted that a reduction of 5 years from the sentence that would be imposed on an adult, to reflect youth and exploitation, was insufficient. The Court agreed and the minimum term was reduced to 11 years.