Bomb hoaxes: Custody suspended

O called Police to say he had bombs in his home. He said he planned to set them off. O said he was ready to carry out a terrorist attack if anyone approached him. 

O further admitted having made nearly 500 calls to the area Ambulance Service and more than 200 calls to Police in twelve months. The Prosecution demonstrated that the cost of the emergency services when attending to O’s calls was £56,500. O had repeatedly spoken in an aggressive tone to emergency call staff whilst occupying emergency services ‘phone lines.

The Prosecution opened against O at the sentence by submitting that O’s offending should be characterised as higher culpability (false calls to emergency services; campaign demonstrated by hundreds of calls) that had caused greater harm (major disruption; sheer volume of calls and the cost to the taxpayer).

The Court correctly observed that deterrent sentences marked by immediate custody are almost always required for this type of offending.  Deterrence is of critical importance having regard to the need to protect the public and the emergency services from individuals who cause fear and disruption by bomb hoaxes. It will be rare, if ever, that such an offence will result in other than an immediate custodial sentence, regardless of personal mitigation.

Abigail persuaded the Judge that O’s case really was a rare instance when immediate custody should be avoided because O’s circumstances were exceptional.  Acceding to Abigail’s submissions – agreeing that O’s personal mitigation was exceptional – the Judge suspended twelve months’ custody for two years.  The Defence had arranged to have O independently assessed and collated his mitigation from several sources. 

Gonul Guney, Director of GSG Law Solicitors, and Anna Maj, instructed Abigail.