R v Urfan Sharif & Ors

R v Urfan Sharif & Ors

The sentences imposed on Sharif, Batool, and Malik were not manifestly excessive. The judge properly applied the sentencing framework, avoided double counting, and gave appropriate weight to aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentence on Sharif was not unduly lenient and a whole life order was not required given the facts and absence of premeditation or sadistic conduct as strictly defined. The applications for leave to appeal against sentence are refused and the Attorney General's Reference is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant/offender: Urfan Sharif; Applicant/offender: Beinash Batool; Applicant/offender: Faisal Malik; Respondent/prosecutor: Attorney General/Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Attorney General's Reference / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Attorney General's Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused; Attorney General's Reference granted but Reference dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Murder, Causing or Allowing Death of a Child, Attorney General's Reference, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Murder Causing or Allowing Death of a Child Attorney General's Reference Appeal Against Sentence

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Urfan Sharif

Applicant/offender

Beinash Batool

Applicant/offender

Faisal Malik

Applicant/offender

Attorney General/Crown

Respondent/prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal and Attorney General's Reference / Court of Appeal Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Attorney General's Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on Urfan Sharif, Beinash Batool, and Faisal Malik were manifestly excessive; whether the sentence imposed on Sharif was unduly lenient and should have been a whole life order.

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed on Sharif, Batool, and Malik were not manifestly excessive. The judge properly applied the sentencing framework, avoided double counting, and gave appropriate weight to aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentence on Sharif was not unduly lenient and a whole life order was not required given the facts and absence of premeditation or sadistic conduct as strictly defined. The applications for leave to appeal against sentence are refused and the Attorney General's Reference is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused; Attorney General's Reference granted but Reference dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against sentence refused for Urfan Sharif, Beinash Batool, and Faisal Malik.
  • Leave to refer sentence on Sharif granted to Solicitor General but Reference dismissed; sentence upheld.