R v Mohammad Shafiq

This is the hearing of an application by His Majesty's Attorney General for leave to refer a sentence which the Attorney General considers to be unduly lenient. The respondent is Mohammad Shafiq, who was born in June 2006 and is now aged just 20 years but who was aged between 17 and 18 at the time that the offences were committed. He was of previous good character before the commission of the offences.

On 28 October 2025 he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court and pleaded guilty to four offences of collection of terrorist information, contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The three section 58(1) (c) offences were committed on 29 February 2024, when Mr Shafiq was aged 17 years and 8 months. The offences involved accessing three issues of Rumiyah, which is an online magazine used by Islamic State for propaganda and recruitment. The section 58(1) (b) offence was committed between 17 October 2023 and 3 July 2024, when Mr Shafiq was aged 17 years 4 months up to 18 years and nearly 1 month (his birthday being on 11 June). Mr Shafiq had an edition of Inspire, an online magazine published by Al-Qaeda.

Following the pleas of guilty Mr Shafiq was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 12 January 2026 Mr Shafiq, who was entitled to full credit of a third deduction from the sentence for his guilty pleas made at the Magistrates' Court, was sentenced to a community order, with an end date 3 years after the date of the order, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of 60 days and an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement for 180 days from the date of the order on each count concurrent. A serious crime prevention order was made with a duration of 5 years and a forfeiture order pursuant to section 23A of the Terrorism Act was made in respect of two mobile telephones and a laptop computer. A surcharge was also imposed.

In reaching an overall sentence of a community order, it is submitted by Mr McGhee on behalf of the Attorney General either the upward adjustment to reflect totality was too little or the downward adjustment to reflect matters of mitigation was too generous, or both. That was because it was common ground by the end of the slip rule hearing that this was category B2 offending under the adult specific guideline for collection of terrorist information. That gave a starting point of 4 years and a category range of 3 to 5 years for one offence. It was also submitted that the judge was wrong to apply the Overarching Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People. The sentence imposed by the judge was below the range set out in the offence specific guideline, inadequate to reflect the seriousness of the offending.

It is submitted by Mr Kane KC on behalf of Mr Shafiq that the Attorney General is wrong to submit that the guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People did not apply because that was inconsistent with authority, the Attorney General having failed to reflect on the two pre-sentence reports and the psychiatric report which demonstrated immaturity and therefore reduced culpability. The judge imposed the correct sentence for the individual.

During the course of submissions Mr McGhee clarified the submission on behalf of the Attorney General to the effect that the Children and Young Person Guideline was relevant, and that what had been set out in writing was infelicitously expressed but the short point was only a custodial sentence could be imposed for this offending. We grant leave, because of issues about categorising the offences under the offence specific guideline.

On 3 July 2024 police arrested Mr Shafiq at his home address in Burnley. His mobile telephone and laptop were seized and Mr Shafiq did provide the access codes for those devices. It was evident from the mobile telephone that Mr Shafiq had viewed issues 2, 3 and 4 of Rumiyah. Issue 2 contained an article which provided practical assistance in carrying out a lone act of a terrorist knife attack. One section gave advice about where to attack a person on the body. Issue 3 contained a section on terror tactics and gave advice on how to select an ideal vehicle for an attack and how to select targets and carry out the attack. Issue 4 contained a section on terror tactics including knife attacks and how to select a correct knife and inflict maximum damage. It was said that lone victim attacks should be carried out to form prolonged terror campaigns.

The offence under section 1(b) related to Inspire. That provided instructions on how to build a bomb together with suggested targets. The article was headed "Car bombs inside America". That issue was downloaded on 18 October 2023, and a copy was found in a zip folder. Another copy was found still accessible in the recycling bin, which suggested that Mr Shafiq had accessed and interacted with it.

There was also a substantial quantity of what is referred to as mindset material on Mr Shafiq's mobile telephone and on his laptop. He had been in contact with others who had an extremist mindset. He had viewed two issues of Dabiq magazine. He had accessed "Hijrah to the Islamic State" and he had accessed these and other publications via Telegram which is an end to end encrypted instant messaging application.

He had two Telegram accounts, one with the profile name of "Michael Novikov" and the other "Abu Sufyan", and it was apparent from the mobile telephone that he was a member of over 200 Telegram group chats and broadcast channels, many of which showed extremist Islamic mindset material. He had first joined one of those groups publishing extremist material in April 2021 when he was aged 14 years. However, the bulk of his interaction was between 2023 and 2024 and he had viewed material titled "39 ways to commit Jihad" and also "Kafirs Blood is Hala For You. So Shed It". All took place on the same date in June 2024.

He created a group chat himself called the "Base of Jihad". There were 48 users and he had engaged with the group between 4 July 2023. He was 17 on 11 June 2023 and on 27 June 2024 when he was just over 18, he had sent two images to the group relating to people playing football with severed heads and others with Islamic fighters posing with severed heads. Also on his mobile phone was material showing support for Al-Qaeda and especially Osama Bin Laden.

There were a number of indications that Mr Shafiq was security conscious. He shared guides for transmitting files via The Onion Router applications which allows for anonymous communications and for online activity to be concealed from third parties. He showed a willingness to share terrorist publications with others and whilst only limited data was captured from his Twitter or X account there was evidence that there were in fact some sharing when he had referred to the fact that "I have the 3 inspire files and the 2 resurgence n u want them". He had also expressed a desire to travel abroad to fight for a terrorist organisation and made Internet searches in relation to obtaining Afghan and Pakistani passports and he had visited the number of related websites. On 13 June 2024, which was three days before his arrest, he discussed travelling to Afghanistan and Pakistan with a view for fighting for the Pakistan Taliban, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation.

Following his arrest, Mr Shafiq was interviewed by the police in June 2024 and March 2025. On both occasions he was legally represented. He answered "no comment" to all questions asked of him. We should say that this made this more difficult for Mr Shafiq to show by reference to contemporaneous explanations that he had no terrorist intentions and that all of this offending was the result of naivety and curiosity, as he alleged to the author of the pre-sentence report.

A pre-sentence report was ordered and prepared, the first dated 6 November 2025. Sentencing Notes were prepared by the prosecution and defence and seven character references were provided. We have seen those. Those included a reference from Mr Shafiq's brother who said how ashamed he was, his father who said that this was not the person he knew and others who knew him who said they were shocked and horrified by his activities. There was an addendum to the pre-sentence report and the author of the pre-sentence report had interviewed Mr Shafiq by telephone.

Mr Shafiq said he did not support terrorism or violence. He had viewed the offending material because he was curious as to how a normal person could be brainwashed to commit an act of terror. He claimed to be disgusted and horrified by what he had read. He said he was deeply sorry for his actions and had no intention to commit any offence. He had read the documents in question. He may have logged on to a chat site where people may have been talking about terrorism. In the light of his age, of Mr Shafiq, the author of the pre-sentence report stated that immaturity might be a causal factor in the offending, but made no specific findings and noted that while it was credible that Mr Shafiq's explanation that curiosity had led him to the offending the author had acknowledged "a limitation to one interview over the phone, I don't really know Mr Shafiq and there might have been other motivations and manipulation in play."

A further report was obtained by Dr Salman Hashmi, a consultant psychiatrist, and that was dated 16 December 2025. That followed a psychiatric assessment of Mr Shafiq. That showed that Mr Shafiq is likely to have traits of Asperger’s Syndrome including his narrative of not being able to understand others' feelings, concrete and literal interpretations of conversation, resistance and stress consequent to change, sensory sensitivity to noise, light and texture. The psychiatrist noted that the disorder differed from autism primarily because there is no general delay or retardation in language or cognitive development. Mr Shafiq had attended mainstream school, had completed GCSEs and had not had behavioural and disciplinary issues whilst in education.

The judge heard submissions on 9 January 2026 and remanded Mr Shafiq in custody over the weekend and sentenced him on 12 January 2026 to the sentence that we have already indicated. In the course of those sentencing remarks, although it was not as clear as it might have been, the judge seems to have adopted a category of B3 on the basis that she found that harm was not very likely to be caused as she said was required by harm category 2. It is common ground that was an error and therefore the matter came back at a slip rule hearing on 19 January 2026, when the judge clarified that the sentence was for offending of category B2. The judge did note, and it is only fair to record, that there is a considerable overlap between the starting points and sentencing range for offence category B2 and B3. Offence category B2 has a starting point of 4 years and a category range of 3 to 5 years, whereas offence category B3 has a starting point of 3 years and a category range of 2 to 5 years. The judge specifically noted that both had the same upper limit.

The judge in her sentencing remarks said that the contention made on behalf of Mr Shafiq that the Sentencing Young People Guideline was relevant because he was under 18 when he began offending was accepted, and the court should therefore take as its starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed at the date on which the offence was committed. The judge recognised that given that a custodial sentence should be a last resort when sentencing young people and children. The judge found that there was ample evidence from the material and Mr Shafiq's post from which it could be concluded that he did have terrorist motivations and the judge specifically referred to the alternative analysis set out by the author of the pre-sentence report. There were though other matters relevant to culpability being age and immaturity which reduced culpability. The fact that he showed traits of Asperger's were said to go some way to explaining his persistence in viewing and pursuing terrorist material. The judge said at the slip rule hearing that the level of culpability was B but it was very much at the lower end of the range. The judge had regard to the decision of the Court in R v Bel [2021] EWCA Crim 1461 and the subjective and object elements of harm.

So far as the aggravating factors were concerned, the judge noted the significant volume of terrorist publications, the length of time over which the offending was committed and the deliberate use of encrypted technology to facilitate the commission of the offence. Mitigating factors were age, no previous convictions, compliance with bail conditions without further offending, good academic record and positive character as evidenced by the character references. Mr Shafiq had been polite, articulate and cooperative according to the pre-sentence report and there was no evidence that he was actually going to act on the information which he had accessed and discussed. It remained something of a mystery as to why Mr Shafiq, from a respectable family, had been drawn to terrorist material. The judge could only conclude that:

A pre-appeal report dated 21 April 2026 was prepared by a specialist probation officer for the court. The writer had managed Mr Shafiq since 16 January 2026. It was apparent that Mr Shafiq had exhibited some controlling behaviour and, most importantly, a continuing lack of insight into how bad the material was and its potential for harm. It is also apparent from the Annex A which was annexed to the Respondent's Notice by Mr Kane that there has been continued monitoring following the date of that report being 27 April, 8 May, 12 May, 19 May, 29 May, 1 June, 8 June, 17 June and 23 June. There had been phone appointments with probation officers after that date on 23 April, 28 April, 7 May, 14 May, 21 May, 28 May, 4 June, 10 June, 18 June and 25 June, and there have also been attempts to put him in contact with careers advice. The tag is due to expire on 11 July. He had never unplugged the phone installed along with Cybertag. Police had visited him. They visited him on 13 January, 22 January, 28 January, in fact regularly since the date of sentence, and on 5 March 2026 there was a surprise visit when he was getting out of a car as the MOT was being done. He left the car at the garage and walked back where they inspected his phone. There has been cooperation albeit in the light of the information provided by the probation writer with lack of insight.

We turn to the offence specific guideline. The reason we have granted leave is because it is apparent that the judge originally made an error between categorisation of B3 rather than B2 and made no apparent alteration to the sentence. Culpability B is common ground and that was because Mr Shafiq collected, made a record of, was in possession of or viewed or otherwise accessed over the Internet information likely to be useful for a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism and Mr Shafiq had terrorist motivations. Category 2 was satisfied because the material provides instruction for specific terrorist activity endangering life but harm is not very likely to be caused.

So far as the Overarching Guidelines for Sentencing Children and Young Persons is concerned, that provides in section 1: “When sentencing children or young people (those aged under 18 at the date of the finding of guilt) a court must have regard to:

The position in relation to Mr Shafiq is nuanced, in the sense that he committed some of his offending when he was a child, under the age of 18. Some of the offending, albeit he had started it under the age of 18, continued for a week before his arrest when he was over 18 and he was sentenced when he was over 18. As is made clear by the case of R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281; [2023] 1 WLR 1858, when sentencing an adult for an offence committed when they were a child the following principles are to be applied:

We consider that in this case it is apparent that the judge did have proper and measured regard to the relevant guidelines. First of all, the offence specific guideline, albeit that the judge made an error which was put right at the slip rule hearing in relation to categorisation; and secondly to the Overarching Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People. We do not consider that the judge erred in having regard to that guideline. Indeed, it is apparent from Ahmed that the judge was required to have regard to it. Authorities also establish that the age of 18 is not a cliff edge. Therefore when one has regard to the offence specific guideline for an adult and all the matters set out in the Sentencing for Children and Young Persons, one is still left with a very difficult sentencing exercise.

With a starting point of 4 years for one offence under the adult offence specific guideline, albeit committed as a child, it is necessary to reflect on the important matters of mitigation being: no previous convictions; compliance with bail conditions; the positive good character; and the youth and immaturity. This is before the third discount for plea. So one can see how the judge came to a sentence of a length which qualified for suspension. That then brings us to what was the appropriate disposal. As the judge recorded, she had reflected carefully over two weekends in relation to the appropriate sentence and she considered, having had the benefit of seeing the material at great length, that the best way to protect the public and indeed to carry out the aims of the guideline for sentencing young people and children was to provide a community order. It is apparent, and one of the reasons why we have read out some of the details of the supervision which has been carried out on Mr Shafiq that he has been carefully supervised whilst out in the community. It is also apparent that he suffers still from a lack of maturity and insight into his own offending.

Given the relevant legal principles which apply to Attorney-General References, which include the propositions that: the sentencing judge is best placed to assess relevant factors; and the jurisdiction exists to correct gross errors; we consider that this was a sentence which the judge could properly pass. We do consider the sentence to have been lenient, but we are unable to say that it was unduly lenient. For all of those reasons, we refuse the Reference.

We should conclude this judgment by thanking both Mr McGhee, on behalf of the Attorney General, and Mr Kane KC, on behalf of Mr Shafiq, for the excellence of their written and oral submissions.