Five Palestine Action activists face being sentenced as terrorists after they sprayed red paint and cracked windows at a branch of Barclays bank to protest the company’s links to an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
“”" offence found to have a terrorist connection by definition in new sub-paragraph (3E), the offender will be subject to the
release provisions in section 247A of the 2003 Act (for extended sentences for offences
which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, release will be at the end of the
full custodial term; for all other sentences release will be at the discretion of the Parole
Board from the two-thirds point of the custodial term).“”"
So I believe what “terrorist connection” aggravating factor does for conviction in crimes like property damage is that you can apply for parole after 2/3 of the full sentence. From what I read it definitely doesn’t extend the sentence - the maximum sentence is still the same as maximum sentence for property damage. Not sure if the judge is forced to apply maximum sentence or not if terrorist connection is found. Can’t find any info on that.
EDIT: I read the sentencing and minimum sentence is not affected, just the parole conditions.
It would extend the time spend in prison, not the sentence. The sentence is the maximum time someone can be held in prison. This is not extended. Parole rules determine the minimal possible time someone has to spend in prison. This is what changed.
I’m clearly not defending anything here, just explaining what happened. Don’t confuse people by mixing legal terms.
Ah, you’re a world of imagination type. Sorry, I operate in real world effects, not in theoretical constructs that are totally different except for in what they actually do.
Where did you get this idea from? Aggravating and mitigating factors specifically apply to the length of the sentence in UK law.
I may be wrong but https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/129/5801129en.pdf
“”" offence found to have a terrorist connection by definition in new sub-paragraph (3E), the offender will be subject to the release provisions in section 247A of the 2003 Act (for extended sentences for offences which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, release will be at the end of the full custodial term; for all other sentences release will be at the discretion of the Parole Board from the two-thirds point of the custodial term).“”"
So I believe what “terrorist connection” aggravating factor does for conviction in crimes like property damage is that you can apply for parole after 2/3 of the full sentence. From what I read it definitely doesn’t extend the sentence - the maximum sentence is still the same as maximum sentence for property damage. Not sure if the judge is forced to apply maximum sentence or not if terrorist connection is found. Can’t find any info on that.
EDIT: I read the sentencing and minimum sentence is not affected, just the parole conditions.
You don’t see how changes like that, extending the minimum time to be considered for parole (I.e released), would in practice extend a sentence?
It would extend the time spend in prison, not the sentence. The sentence is the maximum time someone can be held in prison. This is not extended. Parole rules determine the minimal possible time someone has to spend in prison. This is what changed.
I’m clearly not defending anything here, just explaining what happened. Don’t confuse people by mixing legal terms.
Ah, you’re a world of imagination type. Sorry, I operate in real world effects, not in theoretical constructs that are totally different except for in what they actually do.