Ashfaq, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1294 (17 June 2025)

Ashfaq, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1294 (17 June 2025)

The sentencing judge was entitled to consider both the Robbery-dwelling and Street Robbery guidelines given the facts, properly accounted for aggravating features and harm, and made permissible reductions for youth. The sentences, though lenient, were not unduly lenient.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1294
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Respondent: Adeeba Ashfaq; Respondent: Laiba Ashfaq
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Application for Leave to Refer Sentence as Unduly Lenient; Determination of Reference
Outcome
Reference refused; sentences upheld
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Robbery, Wounding, Burglary, Criminal Damage, Youth Offenders, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Sentencing Robbery Wounding Burglary Criminal Damage Youth Offenders Sentencing Guidelines

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Adeeba Ashfaq

Respondent

Laiba Ashfaq

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Application for Leave to Refer Sentence as Unduly Lenient; Determination of Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the correct sentencing guideline (Robbery-dwelling vs Street Robbery)
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to give sufficient upward adjustment for higher culpability and serious harm
  3. 3 Whether the judge made too great a reduction for youth, potentially misunderstanding the Sentencing, children and young people guideline

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to consider both the Robbery-dwelling and Street Robbery guidelines given the facts, properly accounted for aggravating features and harm, and made permissible reductions for youth. The sentences, though lenient, were not unduly lenient.

Court Disposition

Reference refused; sentences upheld