Ahmed & Ors, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 732 (13 May 2025)

Ahmed & Ors, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 732 (13 May 2025)

The sentences imposed on the three offenders were unduly lenient because the trial judge failed to sufficiently adjust the starting point to reflect the extreme vulnerability of the victim, the severe psychological harm, and the overall gravity of the case, and did not properly account for aggravating features or the totality principle in cases of multiple offences. The Court of Appeal substituted higher sentences for each offender to reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 732
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Offender: Fayaz Ahmed; Offender: Imtiaz Ahmed; Offender: Ibrar Hussain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (attorney General's Reference) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Unduly Lenient Sentence Reference
Outcome
Sentences quashed and substituted with higher terms of imprisonment for all three offenders.
Legal Topics
Rape, Sentencing, Unduly Lenient Sentences, Sexual Offences Against Children, Attorney General's Reference
Criminal Law Rape Sentencing Unduly Lenient Sentences Sexual Offences Against Children Attorney General's Reference

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

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Fayaz Ahmed

Offender

Imtiaz Ahmed

Offender

Ibrar Hussain

Offender

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for rape offences against a child were unduly lenient
  2. 2 Proper categorisation and adjustment of sentencing starting points for harm and culpability
  3. 3 Appropriate upward adjustment for aggravating features and totality in sentencing multiple offences

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed on the three offenders were unduly lenient because the trial judge failed to sufficiently adjust the starting point to reflect the extreme vulnerability of the victim, the severe psychological harm, and the overall gravity of the case, and did not properly account for aggravating features or the totality principle in cases of multiple offences. The Court of Appeal substituted higher sentences for each offender to reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Court Disposition

Sentences quashed and substituted with higher terms of imprisonment for all three offenders.

Orders

  • Sentence of six-and-a-half years for Ibrar Hussain quashed and substituted with 10 years' imprisonment concurrent.
  • Sentence of nine years for Imtiaz Ahmed quashed and substituted with 11 years' imprisonment.