According to the Attorney General’s Office, the Court of Appeal on 27 October 2026 increased the minimum terms imposed on Nivalda Santos Pirjani and Klevi Pirjani after Attorney General Ellie Reeves KC MP referred the case under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. The revised minimum terms are 17 years and 9 months for Nivalda Santos Pirjani and 21 years and 6 months for Klevi Pirjani. (gov.uk) For Policy Wire readers, the ruling is best understood not only as a sentencing update but as a practical example of how the review mechanism operates when a Crown Court sentence in a qualifying case is challenged as too low. GOV.UK guidance states that murder is one of the offence categories that can be considered under the scheme. (gov.uk)
The government statement says Miguel Pirjani spent the first month of his life in hospital before being discharged into his parents’ care. It says he was assaulted within days of returning home, that the abuse continued over several weeks, and that on 24 November 2024, when he was 13 weeks old, he suffered a fatal head assault. Paramedics restarted his heart, but he did not regain consciousness and died five days later at Alder Hey children’s hospital. (gov.uk) The same statement reports that medical examinations identified 41 fractures, including injuries to his ribs, legs, arm, collarbone and spine. It also records the trial judge’s finding that it was not possible to determine which parent inflicted the fatal injuries, but that they acted together and that whichever parent carried out the violence was encouraged by the other. (gov.uk)
At Liverpool Crown Court on 23 March 2026, Nivalda Santos Pirjani was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years and 3 months for murder, together with a concurrent sentence of 4 years and 6 months for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Klevi Pirjani received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 19 years for murder, alongside a concurrent sentence of 6 years and 6 months for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. (gov.uk) The Court of Appeal’s decision did not alter the convictions reported by the Attorney General’s Office. The change was to the minimum terms attached to the life sentences, increasing each by 2 years and 6 months. (gov.uk)
GOV.UK guidance explains that anyone can ask for a Crown Court sentence in England and Wales to be reviewed if they think it is too low. The process is called the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, and murder is expressly listed as one of the offence categories that can be considered. (gov.uk) The same guidance makes clear that a request must reach the Attorney General’s Office by 11.59pm on the 28th day after sentencing, with weekends and bank holidays included in that period. The Attorney General’s Office then reviews the request and decides whether to send the case to the Court of Appeal. (gov.uk)
The statutory basis sits in section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provides that if it appears to the Attorney General that sentencing in a Crown Court case has been unduly lenient, the case may be referred to the Court of Appeal with that court’s leave. In plain terms, this is a defined legal route for review, not a general power to reopen any sentence that attracts criticism. (legislation.gov.uk) GOV.UK guidance also sets out the limits of the court’s role. The Court of Appeal may leave the sentence unchanged, decide it is unreasonably low and increase it, or refuse to hear the case; it cannot look at new evidence related to the case or change the offence for which the defendant was sentenced. (gov.uk)
In this case, that review mechanism ended with a successful referral by the Attorney General and an increase in both minimum terms. The Attorney General’s Office said the Court of Appeal raised Nivalda Santos Pirjani’s minimum term from 15 years and 3 months to 17 years and 9 months, and Klevi Pirjani’s from 19 years to 21 years and 6 months. (gov.uk) The official statement also records Ellie Reeves KC MP welcoming the outcome after her referral. For criminal justice policy, the point is straightforward: the Law Officers’ intervention is reserved for cases said to meet the unduly lenient threshold, and the final decision on sentence remains with the Court of Appeal. (gov.uk)
The broader lesson is that the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme is a narrow safeguard built into the sentencing system. Only certain Crown Court cases are eligible, the timetable is short, and the court can still leave a sentence in place after review. (gov.uk) That structure matters for public understanding of sentencing. It provides a formal route for serious concerns about sentence levels to be tested against a legal standard, while keeping the review process within clear statutory boundaries. That final point is an inference drawn from the scheme’s published rules and the legislation governing referrals. (gov.uk)