Smith, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1421 (17 October 2025)

Smith, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1421 (17 October 2025)

The Court held that although sturdy shoes could theoretically be a weapon under Schedule 21, the issue was not sufficiently explored at trial or sentencing to justify increasing the starting point to 25 years. The reductions for mitigation and age, while generous, did not amount to gross error. The sentence was not unduly lenient and did not fall outside the reasonable range for the offences.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1421
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Offender/respondent: Ashirie Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Unduly Lenient Sentence Reference
Outcome
Reference refused; sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Murder, Aggravated Burglary, Sentencing, Unduly Lenient Sentence Reference, Minimum Term, Use of Weapon, Mitigation, Aggravating Factors
Criminal Law Murder Aggravated Burglary Sentencing Unduly Lenient Sentence Reference Minimum Term Use of Weapon Mitigation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Ashirie Smith

Offender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Unduly Lenient Sentence Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying a 15-year starting point for the minimum term for murder instead of 25 years under Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020
  2. 2 Whether the reductions for mitigation and age in the aggravated burglary sentence were excessive
  3. 3 Whether the overall sentence was unduly lenient

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that although sturdy shoes could theoretically be a weapon under Schedule 21, the issue was not sufficiently explored at trial or sentencing to justify increasing the starting point to 25 years. The reductions for mitigation and age, while generous, did not amount to gross error. The sentence was not unduly lenient and did not fall outside the reasonable range for the offences.

Court Disposition

Reference refused; sentence upheld

Orders

  • Leave to refer granted
  • Reference refused; original sentence stands