The family of Bhim Kohli, an 80-year-old grandfather fatally attacked while walking his dog in Franklin Park, Leicestershire, has vowed to campaign for tougher sentencing after the Court of Appeal ruled that his teenage killer’s punishment would not be increased. The case, which has gripped the local community and drawn national attention, highlights deep questions about youth crime, racial violence, and the adequacy of the current justice system.
On September 1, 2024, Mr. Kohli, described by loved ones as a loving father, grandfather, and the glue that held his family together, was out for his usual walk in the park when he was set upon by a 15-year-old boy wearing a balaclava. According to BBC News, the boy punched, kicked, and slapped Mr. Kohli with a shoe, inflicting three broken ribs, a broken neck, and other fractures. The attack was not only brutal but racially charged—Mr. Kohli reported to his daughter that he had been called a racial slur during the assault. The next day, Mr. Kohli died in hospital from his injuries.
Adding to the horror, a 13-year-old girl, a friend of the attacker, filmed parts of the incident, capturing Mr. Kohli on his knees, being struck with a shoe and, ultimately, lying motionless on the ground. The girl was heard laughing on the videos, which were later discovered on her phone by police. Further investigation revealed additional footage on her device showing other occasions of racially abusive and violent behavior, including a group of children confronting a man and using a racial slur while she laughed. The girl had even taken a photograph of Mr. Kohli the week before the attack, though she denied targeting him.
The subsequent trial at Leicester Crown Court lasted six weeks. The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted to a "tussle" with Mr. Kohli over a slider shoe, claiming he slapped the elderly man out of "instinct" but denied punching or kicking him. However, the jury convicted him of manslaughter. In June 2025, he was sentenced to seven years in custody. The girl, also unnamed, was sentenced to a three-year youth rehabilitation order by Mr Justice Turner. Her sentence was not referred to the Court of Appeal.
The sentences sparked outrage and sorrow among Mr. Kohli’s family and the wider community. In July 2025, the Attorney General’s Office, led by Solicitor General Lucy Rigby, referred the boy’s sentence to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, after receiving numerous requests from the public. Ms. Rigby explained, "Bhim Kohli suffered an entirely unprovoked attack while walking his dog in his local park, the nature of which shocked the country. It was understandable that I received several requests under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme to consider his sentence. Following careful consideration, I concluded that the male offender’s sentence should be referred to the Court of Appeal as it appeared unduly lenient. I respect the Court of Appeal’s decision. My thoughts today are with Mr. Kohli’s friends and family, and everyone impacted by this horrendous crime."
On August 13, 2025, the Court of Appeal, with Lady Justice Macur presiding alongside Mrs Justice Cutts and Mr Justice Murray, delivered its much-anticipated ruling. The panel concluded that the original sentence was "neither unduly lenient nor manifestly excessive." Lady Justice Macur stated, "We consider that the judge conscientiously executed the necessary sentencing exercise and conveyed his remarks to offender and co-defendant with great skill. We do not find that the sentence was unduly lenient." Addressing efforts by the defense to reduce the sentence, she added, "The sentence was a very significant sentence and necessarily so. It is entirely warranted by the seriousness of the offence. It is unarguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive."
Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr. Kohli’s daughter, Susan Kohli, voiced her family’s profound disappointment and determination to seek change. "Justice has not been done," she told BBC News. "I am prepared to go as far as I can to reach out to MPs, get this changed in Parliament, to get the guidelines changed so we can have tougher sentences for these youths. Because if the youths are prepared to conduct themselves in the way that they do, they should be prepared to face the full weight of the law." She described the attack as "utterly disgusting," recounting how the sound of the girl laughing as her father was struck haunts her family. "Losing dad in these cruel, violent, and deeply shocking circumstances feels like our hearts have been pulled apart. We can’t put into words the pain we feel every day, and this has magnified during the trial."
The case has exposed the role of social media in glorifying violence among youth. Detective Chief Inspector Sinski, as reported by Metro, noted that the boy maintained Snapchat accounts under names referencing his punching power and use of disguises. "It was the prosecution case he revelled in his reputation as a hard man and his propensity to violence. So yes, social media did feature in this," Sinski said.
During the trial, the defense argued that Mr. Kohli’s frailty meant "little or no force was required" to cause his death. Balraj Bhatia KC, representing the boy, told the court, "Sadly, the vulnerability of the deceased’s neck was such that had he spent a day on his beloved allotment and fallen accidentally, the result would have been the same." The court, however, was unconvinced that this mitigated the seriousness of the crime or warranted a reduction in sentence.
The attack and its aftermath have left a deep scar on the Kohli family. Susan Kohli remembered her father as "the person who knitted our family together" and lamented, "Our home feels so empty without him and will never be the same." The family’s grief has been compounded by the knowledge that the violence was recorded, shared, and even celebrated by those involved.
As the legal chapter of this tragedy closes, the Kohli family’s campaign for change is only beginning. Their calls for a review of sentencing guidelines for youth offenders reflect a broader public debate about how society should respond to violent crimes committed by minors, especially when those crimes are racially motivated and amplified by social media. The case of Bhim Kohli stands as a stark reminder of the devastating impact of such violence—not just on the immediate victims, but on families, communities, and the fabric of society itself.
For now, the Court of Appeal’s decision stands, but the questions it raises about justice, accountability, and societal values are likely to echo for some time to come.