Court keeps seven year sentence for teen killer

A court keeps a seven year sentence for a 15 year old accused of manslaughter, as the victim’s daughter calls for guideline reform.

Court refuses to increase sentence for teen killer of Bhim Kohli

The Court of Appeal has decided not to increase the seven year custodial sentence given to a 15 year old boy for the manslaughter of Bhim Kohli, who was 80. The boy was found guilty in April and was sentenced in June. A 13 year old girl received a three year rehabilitation order with a six month curfew and community service. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme by the Solicitor General, Lucy Rigby, who said the case’s seriousness justified review but respected the court's decision.

Susan Kohli, Bhim Kohli’s daughter, spoke of her disappointment and urged changes to sentencing guidelines to better hold youths accountable. The court accepted that video footage shown at trial depicted the attack and the bystander’s response, while the defence argued the current sentence was too lenient. The judges noted the offence was serious and that the sentence was justified by the circumstances, including elements raised during the trial and the evidence presented in court.

This case highlights a clash between calls for tougher punishment of young offenders and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. It also shows how the unduly lenient sentence mechanism operates in practice, allowing high courts to review outcomes they see as too soft. Critics may push for reform, especially when a victim’s family voices a demand for stronger deterrence and the public tests confidence in local policing and youth services.

At the same time, the decision underscores the judiciary’s effort to balance rehabilitation with accountability. The court’s ruling suggests a view that a seven year term can be appropriate where the violence was grave and supported by evidence. The broader question is how guidelines should adapt to changing views on youth crime and community safety.

Highlights

The case leaves the wider issue of how society treats youth crime unresolved