Khalife’s 14 year Sentence explained

Khalife Sentencing – why a consecutive sentence and not a concurrent one?

This week the infamous prison escapee Daniel Khalife was jailed for over 14 years for three offences including espionage and terrorism.

We’ve seen some clumsy reporting in the press around the nature of the sentence imposed by the Judge – Khalife received consecutive sentences, not concurrent ones for his various offences – and whether or not this means he will be eligible for early release.

The sentencing process for multiple offences is complicated. A Judge cannot simple work out a sentence for each offence and add them all together, as this could lead to the offender ultimately serving a disproportionate amount of time in prison.

So, let’s set try to set the record straight.

Breaking down Daniel Khalife’s sentence

In determining her sentence in this case, the judge, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb wanted to ensure that the individual components would be adjusted to produce a fair and proportionate overall term.

• For committing an act prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state the sentence she imposed was 6 years imprisonment.
• For eliciting information about members of the armed forces, the sentence imposed was 6 years consecutive, consisting of a custodial term of five years and a further period of one year when Khalife will be subject to licence.
• For escape the sentence imposed was 2 years 3 months imprisonment consecutive.

A total of 14 years and three months.  It’s true that each individual offence could have attracted a higher sentence.  For example, the maximum prison term for an act prejudicial to the safety of the state can be life imprisonment.  In this case the judge made certain discounts and surcharges to arrive at the final proportionate sentence. An interesting discount she applied was in respect of Khalife’s immaturity, in spite of being an adult.

So, what about Khalife’s chances of early release?

Because of various statutory regimes regulating early release, the judge ruled that due to the severity of his crimes the sentences must be served in order (i.e. consecutively).  And further that Khalife must serve a minimum of 50% of the sentence for espionage offence, 40% of the escape sentence, and two thirds of the custodial term for the terrorism offence before he is eligible to be referred to the parole board for consideration as to whether he should be released before the expiry of the total of the custodial terms.

Are you any less confused?

Consecutive v concurrent sentences

Proportionality is key here.

So how did the Judge come to her decision as to what would be a fair and proportionate sentence for Khalife? 

She followed the Totality guideline. This sets out two possible types of sentences for multiple offences:

1. concurrent where the sentences are all served at the same time
2. consecutive where sentences are served one after the other.

Consecutive v concurrent sentences

Proportionality is key here.

So how did the Judge come to her decision as to what would be a fair and proportionate sentence for Khalife? 

She followed the Totality guideline. This sets out two possible types of sentences for multiple offences:

1. concurrent where the sentences are all served at the same time
2. consecutive where sentences are served one after the other.

Concurrent sentences

Concurrent sentences are used when offences arise out of the same single incident; or where there is a series of offences of the same/similar nature – i.e. multiple thefts conducted in the same workplace against the same employer.

A concurrent sentence therefore reflects the total criminality involved across all the related offences.

Consecutive sentences

Consecutive sentences are appropriate where offences arise out of unrelated incidents, or where one or more offence(s) qualifies for a statutory minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum.

Where consecutive sentences are to be passed, the Judge will add up the sentences for each offence and consider if the total length is just and proportionate. If it is not, the court then considers whether all the offences can be proportionately reduced, or alternatively whether a most serious offence can be identified, and the less serious ones proportionately reduced.

This is the case with Daniel Khalife. 

Khalife must serve the longest term for the most serious offence – i.e. the terrorism offence. But to ensure his sentence is proportionate and reflective of the seriousness of his crimes he must serve this only after he has served his sentences for the espionage and escape offences.

We hope that makes things a little clearer.

If not get in touch with our expert team. 

Or take a look at our blog for more expert analysis on recent legal precedents, controversial decisions, and changes to the law.