Ahmed & Ors, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 1085 (25 June 2019)

Ahmed & Ors, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 1085 (25 June 2019)

The trial judge did not err in giving a section 34 direction or in the conduct of the trial; R's conviction is safe. However, the sentencing judge misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by wrongly categorising the harm as 'serious' (category 1A) rather than 'medium' (category 2A), and applied excessive discounts for youth in some cases. The appropriate sentences are reduced accordingly, but custodial sentences remain justified given the seriousness and aggravating features.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 1085
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Sharmarke Ahmed; Appellant: Muridi Abdelkadir Mohamed Bahdon; Appellant: R; Appellant: G
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against sentence allowed in part; appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Sentencing, Youth Offenders, Joint Enterprise, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Robbery Sentencing Youth Offenders Joint Enterprise Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Sharmarke Ahmed

Appellant

Muridi Abdelkadir Mohamed Bahdon

Appellant

R

Appellant

G

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in giving a section 34 direction regarding the appellant R's silence in interview
  2. 2 Whether the cross-examination of R was unfair and contrary to the Advocate's Gateway Toolkit 8
  3. 3 Whether the verdicts were inconsistent

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in giving a section 34 direction or in the conduct of the trial; R's conviction is safe. However, the sentencing judge misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by wrongly categorising the harm as 'serious' (category 1A) rather than 'medium' (category 2A), and applied excessive discounts for youth in some cases. The appropriate sentences are reduced accordingly, but custodial sentences remain justified given the seriousness and aggravating features.

Court Disposition

Appeals against sentence allowed in part; appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • R's appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • R's sentence reduced from 3 years to 2 years 11 months 12 days' detention, with credit for time on remand and curfew.