Tanveer Ahmed loses appeal against ‘excessive’ sentence for murder of Assad Shah

Tanveer Ahmed, who was sentenced to life imprisonment with a punishment part of 27 years after pleading guilty to the murder of Assad Shah, argued that the starting point of 30 years was “excessive” and that the discount afforded was “inadequate”.

However, the Criminal Appeal Court refused the appeal after observing that the “premeditated” killing was “motivated by religious intolerance” and that the utilitarian value of the plea was “limited”.

The Lord Justice General, Lord Carloway (pictured), sitting with Lord Bracadale and Lord Malcolm, heard that the appellant pled guilty at the High Court in Glasgow in July 2016 to a charge that libelled that he murdered Mr Shah at his newsagents in Minard Road by repeatedly stabbing and punching and kicking him in the head and body.

The deceased, who was 40 years old, was born in Pakistan and came to Scotland in 1998, along with other members of his family, to join his parents who had been granted asylum in Scotland, having come here to avoid violence and intimidation visited upon them as a result of their membership of the Ahmadi sect of Islam.

Ahmadis differ from the majority of Muslims in their belief that Muhammad was not the final Prophet and any statement to the contrary is considered by many to be blasphemous.

Mr Shah, who was recognised as a peace-loving man and went out of his way to show respect for those of all faiths, was however accustomed to using Facebook and YouTube to post messages and videos which were capable of being interpreted as meaning that he himself claimed to be a prophet.

The Sunni Muslim appellant, from Bradford, had seen some of these social media entries and drove to Glasgow to confront the deceased.

While en route he viewed further entries on his mobile phone, in which Mr Shah had repeated his claim to be a prophet, and when he arrived at the store he attacked the shopkeeper with a knife, inflicting some 30 stab wounds and lacerations and fracturing his skull in a manner most commonly seen in road traffic incidents.

The appellant was found by the police in a nearby bus shelter, bleeding from injuries sustained during the attack and when interviewed under caution he explained that his actions had been motivated by the deceased’s “disrespect for the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad, Allah and Faith”.

On 9 August 2016, Ahmed was sentenced to life imprisonment with a punishment part set at 27 years, discounted from a starting point of 30 years, but it was argued that the starting point selected by the sentencing judge Lady Rae was excessive.

It was submitted that the appellant was a first offender and a family man who had the benefit of “glowing references”, and that while the offence was religiously motivated, it was “not religiously aggravated”.

In these circumstances, the offence fell to be considered along with other life sentences in high profile cases, such as those of Nat Fraser, Alexander Pacteau, John Leathem and Ronnie Coulter, where the punishment parts imposed had been “significantly less”.

Secondly, it was submitted that the discount afforded did not represent the utility to the criminal justice system.

The appellant had stated an intention to plead on the day after his first appearance in court, but the trial judge had indicated that, in view of the circumstances, the utilitarian benefit was limited as the trial would have been “a short one”.

However, there had been no need for a preliminary hearing, no need for the citation of witnesses and no court time had been allocated for a trial and therefore it was argued that the judge had erred in affording the limited discount which she had.

Delivering the opinion of the court, the Lord Justice General said: “The function of this court is to determine whether the punishment part of the life sentence selected by the sentencing judge was excessive in the sense of constituting a miscarriage of justice.

“This was a murder of a most extreme kind. It was premeditated and motivated by religious intolerance.

“Having regard to the nature of the crime and the sentencing judge’s careful reasoning, which has been quoted above, the court is not satisfied that the starting point of 30 years was excessive.”

The judges added that the discounts in murder cases should not normally exceed one-sixth and should not be greater than five years.

“However,” Lord Carloway said, “it is important to bear in mind that affording a particular discount is not a matter of entitlement, but one for the discretion of the sentencing judge.

“It is correct to say that the strength of the Crown case is per se not a factor which can be used to restrict the level of discount.

“The utilitarian value of the plea clearly is. In this case, the circumstances were such that, having regard to the nature of the evidence, the utilitarian value was limited and the sentencing judge was entitled to assess the discount accordingly.

“The court is not satisfied that the selection of the discount has resulted in an excessive sentence which amounts to a miscarriage of justice.”