Ahmet & Anor, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 102 (25 January 2024)

Ahmet & Anor, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 102 (25 January 2024)

The Court held that although the sentences were lenient, they were not unduly lenient. The sentencing judge had considered the roles, amounts, and other criminality, and made substantial reductions for mitigation. There was no basis to interfere with the judge's assessment. Mr Ahmet was not entitled to anonymity...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 102
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Respondent: Tunc Ahmet; Respondent: Jordan Gibbons
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Reference (attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Reference Regarding Alleged Unduly Lenient Sentences
Outcome
Reference dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Unduly Lenient Sentences, Drug Offences, Modern Slavery, Anonymity in Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Sentencing Unduly Lenient Sentences Drug Offences Modern Slavery Anonymity in Criminal Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Tunc Ahmet

Respondent

Jordan Gibbons

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Reference (attorney General's Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Reference Regarding Alleged Unduly Lenient Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed on Tunc Ahmet and Jordan Gibbons were unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to reflect the roles of the respondents, the amounts of drugs involved, and the criminality of other conspiracies in the sentences
  3. 3 Whether Mr Ahmet is entitled to anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that although the sentences were lenient, they were not unduly lenient. The sentencing judge had considered the roles, amounts, and other criminality, and made substantial reductions for mitigation. There was no basis to interfere with the judge's assessment. Mr Ahmet was not entitled to anonymity under the 1992 Act in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to refer granted
  • Reference dismissed; sentences not increased