Delivering judgment for the Crown Court, Mr Justice Stephen Fowler concluded: “Anyone handling such devices, particularly with additional shrapnel attached must know the potential lethality of such devices… He would have been aware of not only the potentiality of these devices to inflict serious physical and psychological harm but also to have an adverse impact on the community they were directed towards.”

David Russell KC appeared for the Crown, instructed by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). Martin O’Rourke KC and Andrew Moriarty appeared for the defendant, instructed by Madden & Finucane Solicitors.

Background

On 13 November 2017, two pipe bombs were discovered in the rear garden of a residential property, the occupant having heard a loud bang to the back of the property the previous night. The recovered devices consisted of lengths of copper piping containing low order explosives, lead ball bearings and in one case, nails taped to the exterior as additional shrapnel.

In the early hours of 31 March 2019, a pipe bomb was detonated outside another address with the occupant observing a male fleeing the scene immediately prior to the explosion. The explosion caused the occupant to lose his balance.

On 3 September 2019, a further pipe bomb was detonated at the front door of an address.

Having been arrested under s.41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the defendant elected to provide no comment responses at interview.

At trial, the defendant alleged that he used adhesive tape similar to that found on the pipe bombs to attach loyalist flags to lamp posts in his local area and that his DNA must have been deposited innocently by secondary or tertiary transfer.

The defendant was ultimately convicted of possessing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) with intent to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property at the three addresses, having been connected to each of the three incidents by a combination of circumstantial and DNA evidence.

The defendant came before the Crown Court for sentencing.

The Crown Court

Mr Justice Fowler considered a pre-sentence report, which recorded inter alia that the defendant was a 37-year-old man from a stable background who lived with his mother prior to the index offending. The report also stated that the defendant had a limited criminal record, was in a stable relationship with a partner and had a consistent employment history including work in retail and in the health service.

The judge noted that the report assessed the defendant’s risk of re-offending as being low, but that the defendant presented a high risk of serious harm based on his continued denial of the index offence, limited protective factors, and his stated intention to return to a high-risk area associated with his offending.

The court assessed the defendant’s culpability as being high where inter alia he could have been under no illusion that the pipe bombs were highly dangerous and that his possession of them intended to enable them to be deployed in the manner they were. The court accepted as an aggravating factor that the pipe bombs were deployed against occupied residential premises in separate attacks over a protracted period.

The court was satisfied that the harm caused was of a medium level, where inter alia the persons occupying the homes were put in considerable danger and fear.

Turning to the sentencing framework, Mr Justice Fowler considered that the offences were both serious and specified for the purposes of the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 2008, and so an assessment of dangerousness was necessary and was “as relevant in a case involving conviction for terrorist offences as in any other case”.

The court explained that the report of a consultant psychiatrist, in contrast to the pre-sentence report, did not assess the defendant as being dangerous within the meaning of the 2008 Order and considered that the defendant presented a low risk of re-offending in general non-violent terms and was of low risk for violent conduct towards others.

In the circumstances, the court was not convinced that the test for dangerousness as set out in R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864, R v EB [2010] NICA 40 and R v Wong [2012] NICA 54 was met and refused to find the defendant “dangerous” as defined by the 2008 Order.

As to the applicable sentencing regime, Mr Justice Fowler outlined that it was agreed that only count 3 was caught by the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 due to the date of offending being after 12 April 2019, before the coming into force of s.1 of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021.

The judge observed that Part 3 of the Schedule 2A to the 2008 Order contains offences which are not terrorist offences but are offences capable of being determined as having a terrorist connection and are punishable by life imprisonment.

Finding no evidence from which the court could infer that the defendant was a member of, committed to or influenced by the objectives of a terrorist organisation to become involved in the index offences, Mr Justice Fowler could not be sure that the index offending had a “terrorist connection” and so the defendant was sentenced to a determinate custodial sentence.

As to the appropriate sentence, the court explained: “In terms of a range for offending of this type which involves high culpability and significant/medium harm the appropriate range is in my view eight to 10 years. The issue is where within this range does this case properly lie.”

The judge continued: “The case involves handling several pipe bombs but not involved in their deployment. Anyone handling such devices, particularly with additional shrapnel attached must know the potential lethality of such devices.”

Taking account of all the aggravating and mitigating factors, Mr Justice Fowler was satisfied that the case came within the lower end of the range with a starting point of 8.5 years, having regard to the case being contested and without any reduction in sentence for a plea.

As to the issue of delay which was raised by the defence, the court considered the guidance in R v Coyle [2024] NICA 22 in applying a reduction of six months for the delay of five years in bringing the case to trial.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Crown Court imposed a determinate custodial sentence of eight years split equally between custody and supervised licence on each count concurrent.  

The King v Noel Logan [2026] NICC 4