R v Adeeba Ashfaq & Anor

On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, an attempted robbery which begins in a dwelling and ends in the street may properly be assessed by reference to both the dwelling and street robbery guidelines. Using only the dwelling guideline may over-sentence, while using only the street guideline may under-sentence. A sentencing judge need not disclose every stage of the arithmetic provided the relevant aggravating features have been considered. A youth reduction must be assessed in context, including rehabilitation and the offender’s circumstances. A sentence may be lenient without being unduly lenient; the Court of Appeal will not interfere merely because a somewhat higher sentence might have been imposed.

The Solicitor General sought leave to refer sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Reading on Adeeba Ashfaq and Laiba Ashfaq. On 24 March 2025, Adeeba received four years and six months’ imprisonment for attempted robbery, while Laiba received three years’ detention for the same offence, with concurrent sentences for other convictions.

The reference alleged that the judge had used the wrong robbery guideline, had failed sufficiently to adjust for aggravating features and serious harm, and had made excessive reductions for youth. The central issues were whether the sentences were unduly lenient and whether the judge had misunderstood the relevant children and young people guideline.

Reference refused. The Court granted leave to refer the sentences but concluded that neither sentence was unduly lenient.

1. Robbery guideline. The attempted robbery began in the house but the actual robbery and knife attack occurred in the street. It did not readily fall within either a street robbery or a dwelling robbery category. The judge was permitted, and was right, to take both guidelines into account. The dwelling guideline reflected important aggravating features, including waiting in the house, damaging and soiling the property, and ransacking it. The street guideline remained relevant because the victim was chased and attacked on the road. Using only the dwelling guideline could over-sentence, while using only the street guideline could under-sentence.
2. Culpability and harm. Although the judge had not identified the precise figures before applying mitigation and youth reductions, she had plainly considered the relevant aggravating features, including physical harm and the ransacking of property. There was no legal requirement to disclose the exact workings by which the sentence had been reached.
3. Youth reductions. The wording of the judge’s reference to a 50 per cent discount for Adeeba was potentially ambiguous. Read in context, however, the judge understood the appropriate approach. Her reference to a third discount for Laiba showed that she understood the relevant guidance, including that age 18 was not a cliff edge. In any event, Adeeba received a 50 per cent reduction, so any possible misunderstanding was immaterial.
4. Undue leniency. Other judges might have imposed somewhat higher sentences, and the sentences could fairly be described as lenient. The Court was nevertheless wholly unable to say that they were unduly lenient. The reference was therefore refused and the sentences remained unchanged.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave was granted for the Attorney-General’s reference. The reference was refused and the sentences were not altered: [2025] EWCA Crim 1294.
2. Crown Court at Reading: On 24 March 2025, the sentencing judge imposed four years and six months’ imprisonment on Adeeba Ashfaq for attempted robbery and three years’ detention on Laiba Ashfaq for attempted robbery, with concurrent sentences for other offences.