Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Shuhang Meyan Limbu

14 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 197
Court of Appeal
Three young men violently attacked a homeless man. One appealed his 13-month sentence. The court reduced it to 10 months because he was much younger than the others and the judge hadn't considered his age enough. The court said younger people are more easily influenced and their age needs to be considered when they are sentenced.

Key Facts

  • Shuhang Meyan Limbu (appellant), aged 21, pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
  • The assault involved a prolonged and vicious attack on a homeless, vulnerable victim with three defendants.
  • The attack was captured on CCTV and involved kicking, stamping, and striking the victim with a shoe and a wet floor sign.
  • The appellant was 19 at the time of the offence and six/seven years younger than his co-defendants.
  • All defendants claimed self-defense initially, but the appellant expressed remorse after seeing the CCTV.
  • The judge sentenced the appellant to 13 months' immediate imprisonment.
  • The appeal argued the judge failed to differentiate between defendants' roles, consider the appellant's mitigation (age and personal circumstances), and adequately consider the Sentencing Council guidelines.

Legal Principles

Sentencing guidelines for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Sentencing Council assault guideline

Considerations for suspending sentences, including the prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation.

Sentencing Council definitive guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences

The age of the offender is a material factor in sentencing, particularly for young adults who may be more susceptible to peer pressure and impulsive behaviour.

R v Arie Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 and Attorney General reference case of Clarke [2018], EWCA Crim 185

Outcomes

The appeal was allowed.

The court found the 13-month sentence manifestly excessive given the appellant's age, mitigating circumstances, and the relatively similar roles of the defendants. The age difference was a material factor warranting a lesser sentence.

The 13-month sentence was quashed.

The court considered the appellant's age (19 at the time of the offence) and the delay in the case's conclusion to be significant mitigating factors not fully considered in the initial sentencing. The court also considered the conditions in custody.

A 10-month determinate sentence was imposed.

This sentence reflects the court's assessment of the appellant's culpability, considering his mitigating circumstances, while still recognizing the serious nature of the offence.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.