Khalid, R. v

Khalid, R. v

The minimum terms imposed for murder were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle; the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sentencing differential between Bowen and Khalid accurately reflected their respective culpability in the joint enterprise.

Parties
Appellant: Mohammed Khalid; Appellant: Neville Bowen; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeals against sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Sentencing, Joint Enterprise, Mitigating Factors, Aggravating Factors
Criminal Law Murder Sentencing Joint Enterprise Mitigating Factors Aggravating Factors

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Khalid

Appellant

Neville Bowen

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minimum terms imposed for murder were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle
  2. 2 Appropriate weight to mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing for murder
  3. 3 Sentencing differential between co-defendants in joint enterprise murder

Ratio Decidendi

The minimum terms imposed for murder were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle; the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sentencing differential between Bowen and Khalid accurately reflected their respective culpability in the joint enterprise.

Court Disposition

appeals against sentence dismissed

Orders

  • Bowen's appeal against sentence dismissed
  • Khalid's appeal against sentence dismissed