I have every hope this sentence will be appealed. And rightly so. As far as I can see this only avoided being considered as murder by a whisker, so to give the main perpetrator only 16yrs (he'll likely be out in eight) seems a fucking joke.
25% discount for pleading guilty? 
What about putting it back on again for the total lack of remorse, and laughing to the camera as he was loaded into the back of the police van? Pleading guilty means jackshit, his lawyer will have simply told him he'll get a lesser sentence if he pleads as such, it was a foregone conclusion that he would be found guilty, so it's almost meaningless.
The guy (and his mates) are the scum of the earth, lying, cheating, robbing violent gypos who don't give a flying fuck about anyone else in society, and just laugh in the face of authority and justice.
They are utter filth and should be out away for as long as possible 
.
Sadly it doesn't work like that. Sentencing used to be based on case law where judges had,subject to appeals, more discretion to give harsher or more lenient sentences.
Now sentencing guidelines written by the sentencing council. Its almost like a mathematical table. Offences are categorised according to seriousness and for every offence there is a STARTING POINT which is were the judge begins.
He/She can go up from the starting point for any aggravating factors like lack of remorse committing crimes against vuknerable people etc. And down from the starting point for any mitigating factors for example you get caught growing a canabis crop but its clear you are being forced to babysit the plants by a gang.
Every defendant gets "credit" for pleading guilty thereby saving time and money. It starts at one third for a plea of gulity reducing to 5 or 10% if you plead guilty at the start of the trial. The 3 scumbags would not have been given any credit because they didn't plead guilty.
I really feel for his wife and family but unless ot can be shown and proved there was jury tampering, a procedural fuck up or new evidence the verdict can't be challenged.
From what the detective who dealt with the scumbags said after the sentence I don't think it likely they will try to look for evidence to challenge the verdict.
Its possible the sentences may be appealed but all the appeal court will do is examine the trial judges sentencing remarks and decide whether he sentenced according to the guidelines.
For any increase or decrease there has to be evidence that the sentences were "manifestly" excessive or lenient.
Anyone sentenced to 4 years or less is entitled to be released after serving half their sentence and will be on license until the end of their sentence.
Since 2005 anyone serving over 4 years can apply gor parole after serving half their sentence if they are not considered suitable for release they can reapply every 13 months. They have to be released by the end of their sentence.
For MURDER the mandatory sentence is life. According to guidelines there are starting points according to seriousness of the offence and the judge will use these to set his/her recommendation which is the minimum term the offender has to serve befire applying for release on license. The license remains in force for the life of the offender but this can be amended subject to application and support of probation service and parole board.
The Home Secretary used to be able to alter the Judges recommendation but that all turned to ratshit when the presiding Home Secretary decided to impose a whole life tariff on Venebles and the other scumbag who murdered the young lad in Liverpool. The case went to the EU (I think Cherie Blair or someone from her chambers got involved in that). The court ruled that the tariff set by the trial judge could not be altered by a politician or official from the Home Office.
So these three oxygen thieves can apply for parole after serving half of their sentences I don't think they stand a realistic chance of release at the halfway point. They will, though, have to be released at some point. Their chance of rehabilitation and going "straight"? Well they are in their teens come from a long line of career criminals and are proud of it. They have to be released before they are too old to reoffend. The only plus point is that while they are in jail they won't be able to reproduce any budding prolific thieves! I suppose society has to be thankful for small mercies.
No I am not a lawyer but I did live with one for several years she worked for the CPS. One of our friends was a barrister and used to prosecute and defend. He was paid fees set by the legal aid board which worked out at so much per day to prepare for trial and then a separate fee for each day he attended court.
He made more money defending by accepting several cases. Despite knowing in advance that maybe two would end up as a trial he'd tell the courts and legal aid system all would ho to trial. He'd be paid for trial prep on every case then go to court and say "I've advised my client to plead guilty" and get a pat on the back for saving the justice the expense of running a trial.
Looked remarkably like fraud to me...and he's now sitting as a judge on the Northern Circuit!
Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the Judicial System does it?
