R v Shiroh Ambersley & Anor

In a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal ordinarily respects factual findings made by the trial judge after a full trial. An intention to kill may be inferred from the nature and extent of a joint-enterprise knife attack, and different intentions may be found towards different victims. Life-threatening injury falls within category 1 harm under the relevant section 18 guideline. A sentence is upheld if, viewed against the statutory starting point, aggravating features, further offending and mitigation, it is not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

After a 23-day trial in the Central Criminal Court, Rashid Gedel and Shiroh Ambersley were convicted of murdering Sven Badzak and wounding Bobby Moore with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. They were acquitted of Mr Moore's attempted murder.

Each received a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years, together with a concurrent 12-year sentence for the wounding offence. The appeals challenged the factual basis of the sentences, the findings of intention to kill, the categorisation of Mr Moore's injuries, the weight given to youth and personal mitigation, and the clarity of the sentencing arithmetic.

Both appeals were dismissed. The court held that neither sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. The Court of Appeal applied the established restraint applicable to factual findings made by a sentencing judge who had heard the trial. It will not interfere unless the judge misdirected himself or, exceptionally, no reasonable fact-finder could have reached the conclusion: R v Cairns [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 73. The judge was entitled to find that both appellants participated in a joint-enterprise knife attack and that Ambersley carried a knife.
2. The prosecution did not need to prove which participant inflicted the fatal wound. The nature and extent of the sustained attack supported the inference that Gedel and Ambersley intended that Mr Badzak should be killed. The acquittal on attempted murder of Mr Moore did not prevent a different finding of intention towards Mr Badzak. The sustained attack on Mr Badzak could properly be distinguished from the single blow to Mr Moore. The judge had not sentenced on the basis of premeditation.
3. The statutory starting point under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 was 25 years. The serious attack on Mr Moore and the appellants' previous knife convictions justified upward adjustments. Age and, in Gedel's case, very difficult personal circumstances were substantial mitigation, but the resulting 27-year minimum terms were not manifestly excessive.
4. For the section 18 offence, the life-threatening injuries suffered by Mr Moore fell within category 1 harm and justified category 1A. The reasoning in R v O'Bryan [2022] 1 Cr App R (S) 53 and R v McGowan [2023] EWCA Crim 247 did not require life-threatening injury to be downgraded to category 2.
5. The sentencing judge should have calculated the custody deduction and pronounced the resulting terms. Applying the guidance in R v Sesay [2024] EWCA Crim 483, the court pronounced the resulting sentences as 24 years 226 days for Ambersley and 24 years 220 days for Gedel.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeals against sentence were dismissed, with the resulting sentences pronounced after deducting time spent in custody. [2025] EWCA Crim 442.
2. Central Criminal Court: On 3 August 2023, the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with minimum terms of 27 years, less time spent on remand, and concurrent 12-year sentences for wounding with intent.