The sentence handed to a 15-year-old boy who killed an 80-year-old grandfather in a Leicester park will be reviewed by the Court of Appeal after concerns it may have been unduly lenient, the Attorney General’s Office has confirmed.
The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, received seven years’ detention in June for the manslaughter of Bhim Kohli, who died after being violently attacked while walking his dog in Franklin Park, Braunstone Town, on September 1 last year. The review will proceed under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, which allows sentences to be reconsidered if they fall outside acceptable ranges.
A 13-year-old girl who filmed the attack while laughing escaped custody, receiving instead a three-year youth rehabilitation order. She was 12 at the time of the incident and was also convicted of manslaughter but will serve her sentence under supervision in the community.
Violent Attack on Vulnerable Victim
The court heard that Mr Kohli was subjected to what High Court judge Mr Justice Turner called a “cowardly and violent attack” when he followed his daily routine of walking his beloved dog Rocky to the local park, just yards from his home.
The boy, then aged 14, pushed, kicked and punched the elderly man, fracturing his ribs and causing fatal damage to his spinal cord. Prosecutors told the court the attack involved “deliberate humiliation” as the girl encouraged the violence by recording it on her phone.
What you did was not one single attack which you immediately regretted, but two separate violent outbursts,” Justice Turner told the boy during sentencing.
Leicester Crown Court was told the victim was also racially abused during the assault. Mr Kohli was discovered lying on the ground by his daughter Susan and died the following evening at Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham from a neck injury.
Family Questions Sentence Severity
Susan Kohli expressed anger and disappointment that the sentences did not reflect the gravity of losing her father, describing how difficult it was to find forgiveness for the teenagers despite their young ages.
“Why should they be given grace for what they have done?” she asked. “They chose to attack a defenceless pensioner and for that I cannot give them any of my sympathy.”
The bereaved daughter emphasized the permanent impact on her family, noting that while the teenagers would eventually be released with their lives ahead of them, her family could never recover what was lost.
The death of my dad has left a hole in our family, a hole that can never be filled because of the actions of two teenagers on that Sunday evening last September,” she stated.
Understanding the Review Process
The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme allows any member of the public to request that the Attorney General review Crown Court sentences they believe are too low. The Attorney General’s Office must receive such requests within 28 days of sentencing.
Under the scheme, a sentence is considered unduly lenient only when it “falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate,” according to established legal precedent.
The Attorney General will assess whether the sentence meets this threshold before deciding whether to refer it to the Court of Appeal. If referred, the appeal court has broad discretion to maintain, increase, or refuse to hear the case.
History of Violence Before Fatal Attack
The court heard evidence of escalating antisocial behavior in the Franklin Park area before Mr Kohli’s death. Susan Kohli revealed her father had been subjected to racial abuse and spat at by youths just months before the fatal assault.
“He just kindly said to the children, ‘Look, come on down. You’re going to hurt yourself,'” she recalled of an earlier incident. “But then they started swearing racial remarks, and they also spitting at my dad.”
Despite reporting multiple incidents to Leicestershire Police, the family felt insufficient action was taken. Susan Kohli criticized the lack of visible police presence in the area, stating bluntly: “Dad would still be here if we had more of a police presence.
Police Response Under Scrutiny
Chief Superintendent Jonathan Starbuck acknowledged the shocking nature of Mr Kohli’s death and recognized community concerns about antisocial behavior in the Franklin Park area.
“Prior to Mr Kohli’s death, police were aware of two reports of ASB involving youths in the Franklin Park area which were being investigated,” he confirmed. Partnership work in the area following Mr Kohli’s death did identify further incidents which had not been reported.
The force had made a mandatory referral to the Independent Office for Police Conduct due to prior contact with the victim, highlighting questions about whether more could have been done to prevent the tragedy.
Legal Complexities of Youth Sentencing
The case highlights the complex legal framework surrounding youth offenders in serious crimes. The boy faced trial for murder but was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter, while both defendants’ ages significantly influenced sentencing options available to the court.
Prosecutor Harpreet Sandhu KC argued during sentencing that the boy had “a leading role” in the attack and that death resulted from “an unlawful act which carried a high risk of death or grievous bodily harm.
The judge acknowledged that while the girl had encouraged the boy’s behavior, she did not anticipate the extreme level of violence that would occur.
Wider Impact on Community
Mr Kohli was remembered by his family as a “loving husband, dad and grandad” who “adored his grandkids with all his heart.” At 80 years old, he remained active, tending daily to his allotment plots of which he was particularly proud.
The case has resonated throughout the Leicester community, raising concerns about youth violence and the safety of elderly residents in public spaces. Local support services, including Victim First, have offered assistance to those affected by the incident.
Appeal Process Timeline
The Court of Appeal will now consider whether the seven-year detention sentence falls below acceptable standards for such a serious offense. The review process typically involves examining whether any error of principle occurred in the original sentencing and whether public confidence in the justice system requires intervention.
Legal experts note that for the Court of Appeal to increase a sentence, it must find the original sentence not merely lenient but “unduly” so—a high threshold that requires the sentence to be significantly outside normal ranges.
The Attorney General’s Office has not specified when the Court of Appeal will hear the case, but such reviews typically proceed within several months of the referral being accepted.
As the legal process continues, Mr Kohli’s family remains focused on their loss. When they are released, they still have their full lives ahead of them,” Susan Kohli reflected about the teenage defendants. “They can rebuild their lives. We can’t.”
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
