13 May 2026

The Elbit Systems offenders and Sentencing Act 2020 section 69

Last week, in the Crown Court at Woolwich, Leona Kamio (30), Samuel Corner (23), Fatema Rajwani (21), and Charlotte Head (29) were convicted of criminal damage committed in August 2024 at premises of Elbit Systems Ltd. The jury verdict was unanimous. Samuel Corner was also convicted under section 20 offence of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The four are yet to be sentenced by the trial judge - Mr Justice Johnson - and, in English criminal law, sentencing is entirely a matter for the judge and not a jury.

It is reported that section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is to be applied to their sentencing. 

Section 69 is headed "Terrorist Connection" and is within Part 4 of the 2020 Act (Exercising the court's discretion) Chapter 3 (Seriousness and Determining Sentence). Terrorist Connection is one of a number of aggravating factors set out in Chapter 3.

The original section 69:

The original section 69 came into force on 1 December 2020 and stated:

Hence, for section 69 to apply, the offence being sentenced had to be within Schedule 1. Neither criminal damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971) nor section of the OAPA 1861 were included in Schedule 1.
The situation changed in 2021 .....

The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021:

 The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 received Royal Assent on 29 April 2021.

Section 1 of the 2021 Act amended section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and, at the same time, brought Schedule A1 into the 2020 Act.

The result is that a new section 69 now applies and it came into force on 29 June 2021.


Tthe wording (drafting) of the amended section 69 is far from ideal but Explanatory Notes to the 2021 Act may assist. [Explanatory Notes are not part of the Act]. 

Where a court is sentencing a person for any non-terrorist offence with a maximum penalty of more than two years, and it appears that the offence was committed in the course of an act of terrorism (or for the purposes of terrorism), the court is required to consider whether the offence was committed with a terrorist connection and, if it determines that that is the case, aggravate the sentence and state in open court that the offence has been aggravated.

The offences for which "the four" (Kamio, Corner, Rajwani, and Head ) are convicted carry maximum possible sentences of over 2 years imprisonment. Potentially, they may come within section 69 as it now stands.

What is terrorism?

The sentencing judge will have to consider the meaning of terrorism as set out in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the judge will have to decide whether there was a terrorist connection. 

The terrorist connection must be proved (to the criminal standard).

Note that the word "government" is defined to include the government of another State (e.g. Israel). 

Note also that there are three elements - 

  • the action is within subsection 2 (e.g. serious violence or serious damage to property), 
  • the use or threat is designed to influence the government or a section of the public, 
  • and there use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 and the defence of "lawful excuse" must now be read in the light of 

Attorney General's Reference On A Point of Law No. 1 of 2023 [2024] EWCA Crim 243 (18 March 2024) (bailii.org) and whether a judge may withdraw a defence from the jury is addressed in Attorney General's Reference (No.1 of 2022) - [2022] EWCA Crim 1259.

By judicial decision, the courts have limited the potential ambit of what might be presented to a jury as "lawful excuse." This is particularly so in cases concerning protest for environmental or political reasons.


ooooo



at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)