Prosecuting female terrorists: What do we know?

Existing UK based research suggests that female defendants tend to receive 33% shorter sentences than male defendants for terrorism related crimes (Monaghan et al., 2023). Exploring nuances within this overall average, this article analyses 546 terrorism cases (male n=503, female n=43 ) prosecuted in England and Wales between May 2006 and February 2024, and reveals a mixed picture. These figures relate to any terrorism related crime prosecuted in England and Wales, potentially capturing a mixture of returnees and non-travellers, though this remains unclear. While, on average women receive shorter sentences, on a case-by-case basis there is greater variability in sentencing for women prosecuted for terrorism offences, compared to male offenders. In this article, differences in sentencing and potential explanatory factors are discussed. 

The dataset shows clear differences in the types of crimes men and women are prosecuted for. 

Sentencing differences

The dataset shows clear differences in the types of crimes men and women are prosecuted for. With some exceptions, women were generally prosecuted for non-violent offences linked to providing support for terrorism.

Of the 19 offences shown in the data, women were prosecuted for just 9. Average sentences were generated across these offence types to understand whether there were differences in sentencing between men and women prosecuted for the same kind of crime. This resulted in 15 comparisons (Table 1). 

In one case, male and female defendants received equal sentences. In 8 instances, the average female sentence ranged between 1.45 and 44 months shorter than the average male sentence. In 6 instances, the average female sentence ranged between 5 and 60 months longer than the average male sentence. 

A direct comparison was possible between individual male and female cases in two instances (Table 2). In one case, the female defendant received a sentence 24 months shorter than the male defendant. In the second instance, the female defendant was given a life sentence 144 months longer than the male defendant. 

Low numbers of comparable cases severely restrict the scope of this analysis. However, these findings indicate a wide variance in female sentencing which persist in comparisons between defendants prosecuted of the same offence. Overall, these differences in sentencing are not fully explained by differing offending behaviours and are yet to be fully accounted for.

What might explain differences in terrorism sentencing?

Existing research may help explain this puzzle. A potentially useful argument to understand different legal responses to women associated with terrorism is that of gendered perceptions of agency. Hodwitz suggests, in the Balkans, women are prosecuted less frequently compared to men due to prevailing perceptions of women as ‘victims’ rather than perpetrators of terrorism, frequently ‘excused entirely from criminal justice proceedings, bearing no more legal liability than children’ (2022: 24). 

Similarly, Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) propose lenient sentences for women may be linked to ‘(often false) gendered assumptions about their limited agency’ (2019: 2). 

There are fewer explanations as to why women may receive heavier sentences than male defendants. However, entrenched gender norms which expect women to be motherly and peaceful may facilitate ‘greater shock value’ (Krona & Caskey, 2023: 9) when women engage in terrorism, amplifying perceptions of danger, and potentially impacting sentencing. 

Further possible explanations may be provided by structural criminal justice considerations. Factors such as a guilty plea, and the application of aggravating or mitigating factors have an important impact on sentencing. Beyond this, judges use guidelines to ensure that sentencing is fair and considers the different circumstances of offenders. The Equal Treatment Bench Book suggests that the impact of imprisonment is more acute on female offenders because many have neither a home nor a job to go to on release; are far more likely to be primary carers of children; and have usually committed a non-violent offence. Considering the different circumstances faced by women, The Female Offending Strategy suggests custodial sentences of less than 12-months should be avoided where possible, in favour of community sentencing. Ongoing analysis of sentencing remarks of 25 terrorism related cases (female n=9, mixed-sex co-defendants n=5, male n=11) seeks to find if these broader factors impact sentencing in terrorism cases. 

Potential implications 

Existing research provides useful insight into the implications of shorter sentences for female terrorism offenders, suggesting they have an important impact on rehabilitation. Research based on interviews with practitioners in Europe suggested that shorter sentences for female offenders leave ‘less time for in-prison rehabilitation and de-radicalisation measures’. Similarly, interview-based research with disengagement and radicalisation practitioners in the UK noted that, often, women cannot access prison-based programmes ‘because the waiting period is longer than their prison sentences, or because women are convicted of offenses not directly “terrorism-related”—which is a program entry requirement’. Implications of longer sentencing for women prosecuted with terrorism offences is yet to be fully considered. 

Directions for future research 

Sentencing is a complex process which accounts for different elements of the offence and the offender and further research is needed to explain the differences observed and isolate the factors causing this variation. Though this analysis is formed of a small data sample, further work in Europe and North America illustrates broadly similar sentencing trends. With existing research emphasising concerns short sentences for women may have on their rehabilitation, additional research is needed to understand and explore the potential implications this may have for wider criminal justice, counter terrorism, and deradicalisation measures. 

*NOTE: ‘Difference’ refers to the difference of female sentence compared to the male sentence.
‘Count’ refers to the number of charges for a single crime, i.e., committing the same crime numerous times.