Appeal judges rule terror pair’s minimum terms should stay the same

Two people given life sentences after being convicted of terror offences should not have their minimum jail terms increased, appeal court judges have ruled.

Lawyers representing the Attorney General’s office had argued that the minimum terms given to Fatah Abdullah and Safiyya Shaikh were too lenient.

Lord Justice Fulford, Mr Justice Edis and Mr Justice Foxton ruled on Thursday that Abdullah’s nine-year minimum term and Shaikh’s 14-year minimum term should stay the same.

They had considered arguments 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 that 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.

Safiyya Shaikh court case
Safiyya Shaikh court case

Shaikh, 37, of Hayes, west London, was given a 14-year minimum term in July after a judge at the Old Bailey heard that she had plotted a terror attack at St Paul’s Cathedral.

She admitted preparation of terrorist acts and dissemination of terrorist publications on the internet.

Lawyers representing the Attorney General’s office argued 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 the challenge should be dismissed.