R v Rashko Kurtev

R v Rashko Kurtev

The sentence imposed was unduly lenient because it failed to reflect the high risk of serious harm and the late indication of a guilty plea. The appropriate sentence, after mitigation and a modest reduction for plea, should have been six years' imprisonment.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Rashko Kurtev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
sentence increased
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Sentencing, Unduly Lenient Sentence, Culpability, Reduction for Plea
Criminal Law Manslaughter Sentencing Unduly Lenient Sentence Culpability Reduction for Plea

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

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Rashko Kurtev

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the sentence imposed for manslaughter unduly lenient?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate reduction for a guilty plea in these circumstances?
  3. 3 How should culpability be assessed given the facts and psychological evidence?

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed was unduly lenient because it failed to reflect the high risk of serious harm and the late indication of a guilty plea. The appropriate sentence, after mitigation and a modest reduction for plea, should have been six years' imprisonment.

Court Disposition

sentence increased

Orders

  • Sentence of three years nine months' imprisonment quashed.
  • Substituted sentence of six years' imprisonment imposed.