Pair jailed for terror crimes could have minimum terms increased
Appeal judges are due to rule after Attorney General Suella Braverman said Fatah Abdullah and Safiyya Shaikh had been given lenient sentences.
A man and woman given life sentences after being convicted of terror offences could have their minimum jail terms increased after Attorney General Suella Braverman raised concerns.
Three appeal judges are due to deliver a ruling on Thursday after lawyers representing Ms Braverman argued that Fatah Abdullah and Safiyya Shaikh had been given lenient minimum terms.
Lord Justice Fulford, Mr Justice Edis and Mr Justice Foxton considered Ms Braverman’s application at a Court of Appeal hearing in London in December.
Abdullah, 35, a fanatic of the so-called Islamic State, was given a nine-year minimum term in June after a judge at the Old Bailey heard how he encouraged a terror cell in Germany to commit mass murder with a car, bomb and meat cleaver.
He pleaded guilty to inciting terrorism overseas and engaging in conduct in preparation to assist others to commit terrorist acts.
Shaikh, 37, of Hayes, west London, was given a 14-year minimum term in July after a judge at the Old Bailey heard how she plotted a terror attack at St Paul’s Cathedral.
She admitted preparation of terrorist acts and dissemination of terrorist publications on the internet.
Alison Morgan QC, who represented Ms Braverman, told Lord Justice Fulford, Mr Justice Edis and Mr Justice Foxton that Abdullah, who lived in the Arthur’s Hill area of Newcastle upon Tyne, should have been given a 12-year minimum term, and Shaikh a minimum term of 18-and-a-half years.
Lawyers representing Abdullah and Shaikh disagreed and said Ms Braverman’s challenge should be dismissed.
