Sentencing Children for Violent Extremism: Part 2
| Author | Nigel Stone |
| Published date | 01 August 2022 |
| Date | 01 August 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14732254221105779 |
| Subject Matter | Legal Commentary |
https://doi.org/10.1177/14732254221105779
Youth Justice
2022, Vol. 22(2) 222 –231
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14732254221105779
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
Sentencing Children for Violent
Extremism: Part 2
Nigel Stone
Continued from Volume 22 Issue 1 (April 2022) pp.101–108
Connor Scothern: Neo-Nazi Acolyte
At age 15, S. began to take an active interest in the ideology and activities of National
Action, a small-scale UK-based White supremacist and homophobic neo-Nazi clustering
that was officially proscribed (under TA 2000) as a terrorist organisation for stirring up
hatred and glorifying violence, around 6 months after he first evidenced affiliative identity
with that cause. Defying that ban he had gained the ear of its leadership and was actively
involved in a plan to recruit new members, via demonstrations, banners and stickers, mak-
ing considerable personal financial outlay. Arrested at age 17 (when he told the police that
he had ceased subscribing to such far-right extremist ideology several months before-
hand) and without a prior criminal history, he was convicted at age 19 of the offence of
membership of a proscribed organisation (TA 2000 s.11, with a maximum of 10 years).
Reference to the recent Guideline on Terrorism Offences (Part 1 Endnote 10 refers)
indicated for Category B culpability (‘active’ (but not prominent) member of organisa-
tion), a starting point of 5 years custody and a range between 3 and 7 years. This steer
needed to be modified by application of the 2017 Children and Young Persons Guideline’s
view (Section 6.2, adopting the Ghafoor principle [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 428) that the
appropriate starting point for those who have meantime attained young adulthood should
be the sentence likely to have been imposed on the date at which the offence is committed
when the defendant was still a child/young person, namely a maximum term detention
and training order (DTO) (24 months). In determining whether this might be a rare instance
justifying a term above that maximum, the judge observed that S.’s objective had been
to undermine the values and security upon which our society is based. The subversive nature of
this offence is such that there is an obvious and compelling need for deterrence. . . . You were
not seduced into joining National Action. Instead, you sought out this group and then engaged
Corresponding author:
Nigel Stone, School of Psychology, University of East Anglia, Lawrence Stenhouse Building, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Email n.stone@uea.ac.uk
1105779YJJ0010.1177/14732254221105779Youth JusticeStone
article-commentary2022
Legal Commentary
To continue reading
Request your trial