Senior Conservatives have voiced strong criticism of a sentencing decision in a serious sexual offence case, after a government review concluded the punishment did not meet the legal threshold for appeal.
Chris Philp said he was “shocked” by the outcome of the case involving Ahmad Mulakhil, a 23 year old Afghan asylum seeker convicted of multiple offences, including the abduction and rape of a teenage girl in Nuneaton.
Reacting to the sentence, Philp said:
“This is sick. A 23 year old Afghan migrant who raped a 16 year old has been given a short sentence because apparently he’s too immature to be held fully responsible for his actions. This is justice, apparently, in Keir Starmer’s Britain.”
He argued that the case raised wider concerns about sentencing policy and consistency, particularly in light of political debates about age and responsibility.
Commenting on X, Conservative MP Alicia Kearns added:
“Labour wants to give 16 year olds the vote. Yet, they agree with a judge that a 23 year old rapist should not receive the maximum sentence because of his ‘own immaturity by reason of his age.’ And his “previous good character” What previous evidence of good character? He’s a recent migrant! Child rapist Ahmad Mulakhil should have received the maximum sentence. It’s shameful he did not, and now the Government won’t refer his sentence for being unduly lenient.”
Legal review finds sentence not “unduly lenient”
The case was referred to the Attorney General’s Office under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, which allows certain cases to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.
In a letter to Alicia Kearns dated 29 April 2026, Ellie Reeves said she had concluded the legal threshold for referral had not been met.
Reeves explained that the bar for intervention is “very high” and applies only in exceptional circumstances, such as where a judge has made a serious error or imposed a sentence outside the reasonable range.
She wrote that, after reviewing material from the Crown Prosecution Service, she was satisfied the sentencing judge had followed the guidelines set by the Sentencing Council.
The letter stated that the judge had considered aggravating factors, including the victim’s vulnerability, the psychological harm caused, and the fact she had been taken to a secluded location. These factors placed the offending in a higher sentencing category.
It also confirmed that mitigating factors were taken into account, including the offender’s lack of previous convictions and what was described as “immaturity by reason of his age.”
Reeves concluded:
“Having categorised the offending accurately, the judge selected the starting points for the sentences and properly balanced all the relevant factors… I have come to the conclusion that the threshold is not met in this case.”
Political reaction and wider debate
Conservative figures said they were alarmed by the decision not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, arguing it risks undermining confidence in the justice system.
They also drew comparisons with broader political debates, including proposals to extend voting rights to younger people, questioning how age is treated in different contexts.
The government has not commented directly on those political claims but has previously emphasised that sentencing decisions are made independently by judges applying established legal guidelines.
Legal context
Under current law, judges must follow sentencing guidelines while weighing aggravating and mitigating factors. The Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme is designed to correct only clear errors, meaning many controversial cases do not qualify for appeal.
Legal experts note that disagreement with a sentence does not in itself meet the threshold for referral, which is intentionally strict to preserve judicial independence.
