Max Hill QC: Sentences for terror offences may be too low

Prison sentences for some terror offences may be too low, the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said.

Max Hill QC told the Press Association that new legislation is needed following the attacks in Manchester and London.

Mr Hill said: “With the benefit of experience and hindsight it may be the case that some offences have insufficient discretionary maximum sentences, which should be reviewed.”

He pointed to section 38B of the Terrorism Act 2000, which provides that it is an offence not to contact the police where an individual believes someone is preparing to carry out acts of terrorism.

“It seems to me that that should be reviewed for a decision on whether that is actually sufficient,” he said.

He also suggested using existing criminal offences for terrorism cases.

He said: “We have robust and appropriate laws dealing with firearms, knives, assaults and violence against the person.

“There is already a mechanism for judges to regard a terrorist mindset as an aggravating factor in non-terrorist offences, but that is something that needs to be provided by way of a list or a schedule to indicate to judges which offences may be aggravated by a terrorist mindset.”

The QC also said that people who return from Syria after committing crimes should be prosecuted.

However, he added: “In cases which may come to light of individuals who travel to Syria out of naivety or brainwashing and are desperate to return to their friends and families in this country in a state of great disillusionment after their time in Syria, it doesn’t follow that in every case those individuals must be prosecuted or that there must be any mandatory process against them.”