GUILTY UK - Hashim Ijazuddin, 21, and Saqib Hussain, 20, car crash A46 Leicester 11 Feb 2022 *Murder Arrests*

[JerseyGirl]

TikTok murder trial updates as Natasha Akhtar gives more evidence

All eight defendants deny murdering Saqib Hussain and Hashim Ijazuddin

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

 

[HongKongPhooey]

TikTok murder trial updates as Natasha Akhtar gives more evidence

All eight defendants deny murdering Saqib Hussain and Hashim Ijazuddin

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Zero credibility in his testimony for me.

Another one following the “wise monkey” tactic. But this one peppers it with promising the jury he is telling the truth

 

[bobbymkii]

Zero credibility in his testimony for me.

Another one following the “wise monkey” tactic. But this one peppers it with promising the jury he is telling the truth

JMO - Sanaf's innocence/guilt rests on this pretty wild allegation that he hung himself out of the car window to try and strike the Skoda with some sort of weapon. It could be true, but I don't think the evidence of it is very strong (unless I've missed something?). It's basically just hearsay evidence from Ameer's boss and a quite adventurous interpretation by the prosecution of Saqib's 999 call where he says "they're trying to hit the car."
No CCTV footage or marks on the Skoda from such an incident.
I think AJ, SG, NA and MP (who I've collectively named the "passenger" defendants) will walk at the end unless something dramatic happens in the final two defendant's examinations.

Also: We're now at the exact point where the last trial collapsed. It's all new information from here on in!

 

[Legal]

JMO I think they were wearing balaclavas. The key characters definitely had something of that ilk on them and I think the minute they admit to that, they're finished because it looks like a pre-planned attack. I also can't see why the boss would have made up the story of Sanaf striking the window. That also rings true to me, perhaps Raees yelling at him to do it.

It seems from today's evidence that Natasha was studying law. So that's her career down the drain then, unless she gets no charges. I think she was still telling lies in her evidence (the plan to go to Nottingham) but it does seem like she was being treated like a mug by Raees and I feel sorry for her regarding that. I do believe there's no way the passenger defendants would have done something like this off their own bat - they were going to a shisha bar for the evening - but will they escape any charges? I'm not sure.

JMO IMO etc.

 

[bobbymkii]

JMO I think they were wearing balaclavas. The key characters definitely had something of that ilk on them and I think the minute they admit to that, they're finished because it looks like a pre-planned attack. I also can't see why the boss would have made up the story of Sanaf striking the window. That also rings true to me, perhaps Raees yelling at him to do it.

It seems from today's evidence that Natasha was studying law. So that's her career down the drain then, unless she gets no charges. I think she was still telling lies in her evidence (the plan to go to Nottingham) but it does seem like she was being treated like a mug by Raees and I feel sorry for her regarding that. I do believe there's no way the passenger defendants would have done something like this off their own bat - they were going to a shisha bar for the evening - but will they escape any charges? I'm not sure.

JMO IMO etc.

I was disappointed in Natasha's evidence today. When she said she now hated Raees I thought there would be fireworks and the beans would be spilt everywhere. But no, she's still sticking with this story about how she had a minor fender bender a few weeks earlier and that she didn't actually see the incident, even if tinted windows, two big dudes in the front etc. but was shaking when she took over driving afterwards because of the Skegness trip?
I really don't know how you miss a car you are in having a collision with another, especially when it's her own car! And a final year law student who wants to be a criminal solicitor who blabs that much on the prison phone system about the case they're charged in!
Cross exam from Leonard Smith and Collingwood Thompson could be very messy. JMO!

 

[Blynk Mist]

I really don't know how you miss a car you are in having a collision with another, especially when it's her own car! And a final year law student who wants to be a criminal solicitor who blabs that much on the prison phone system about the case they're charged in!

If I were in the Jury, NA comes across to me as someone that is using her knowledge of studing law to try and make her argument that she saw nothing and thought nothing of anything, so thereby saying "prove that I did!?" to the court...

To me, I don't believe her, so I would look at the balance of probabilities from all other testimony and make up my mind from that. I think she made a mistake with the call in prison, the story was something they made up afterwards and now she's trying to cover up the call with the likes of 'expected to be charged with letting Raees use her car when he was a disqualified driver', which sounds very much like an afterthought, trying to suggest the least possible charge she/they can think of rather than what she thought at the time. Along with lots of other dismissive "I can't remember", "didn't see anything" type comments.

I don't believe her but not sure if I would convict for Murder or Manslaughter, can lesser options be introduced?

 

[bobbymkii]

I don't believe her but not sure if I would convict for Murder or Manslaughter, can lesser options be introduced?

I was wondering the exact same thing! Probably would have to happen at (yet another) trial wouldn't it?

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I was wondering the exact same thing! Probably would have to happen at (yet another) trial wouldn't it?

I don’t think so. I think it’s guilty or not guilty to the current charges basically. Unless any of them decide to change their plea (if that’s still an option at this point). Not sure tho, @Nikynoo are you about?!

 

[bobbymkii]

I don’t think so. I think it’s guilty or not guilty to the current charges basically. Unless any of them decide to change their plea (if that’s still an option at this point). Not sure tho, @Nikynoo are you about?!

I'm not a legal professional by any means. But I do like to do a bit of lunchtime guerilla law education and then eagerly awaiting the internet's response as to how right/wrong I was! Anyway - here's section 75 of the Criminal justice act 2003. I've highlighted in bold the bit that i think is particularly relevant:

75. Cases that may be retried​

(1) This Part applies where a person has been acquitted of a qualifying offence in proceedings—
(a) on indictment in England and Wales,
(b) on appeal against a conviction, verdict or finding in proceedings on indictment in England and Wales, or
(c) on appeal from a decision on such an appeal.

(2) A person acquitted of an offence in proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) is treated for the purposes of that subsection as also acquitted of any qualifying offence of which he could have been convicted in the proceedings because of the first-mentioned offence being charged in the indictment, except an offence—
(a) of which he has been convicted,
(b) of which he has been found not guilty by reason of insanity, or
(c) in respect of which, in proceedings where he has been found to be under a disability (as defined by section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84)), a finding has been made that he did the act or made the omission charged against him.

 

[Blynk Mist]

This is the first time I've followed any legal case, so I just Googled to find the definitions of the charges and found this: Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

In simple terms it seems to be charged with murder, there must be an

intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)

for manslaughter

intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted

All of the "I didn't see anything" and "didn't think anything odd" etc etc several have introduced into their defences I think it down to this paragraph:

An objective test must be applied to the question as to whether an accused's unlawful act, from which death results, was dangerous - DPP v Newbury (Neil) [1977] Crim. L.R. 359. In judging whether the act was dangerous the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger. The jury has to decide whether D's unlawful act exposed V to the risk of "some' harm - Church [1966] 1 QB 59; R v JM and SM [2012] EWCA Crim 2293.

It seems like they are going with the "I didn't know anything was happening" so if they didn't recongnise the danger, don't pass the objective test and be found not guilty.

I personally don't think there was any intent to kill that night, however do think there was intent for GBH by several of the defendants and sober and resonable people would recognise the danger unfolding.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

This is the first time I've followed any legal case, so I just Googled to find the definitions of the charges and found this: Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter | The Crown Prosecution Service

In simple terms it seems to be charged with murder, there must be an



for manslaughter



All of the "I didn't see anything" and "didn't think anything odd" etc etc several have introduced into their defences I think it down to this paragraph:



It seems like they are going with the "I didn't know anything was happening" so if they didn't recongnise the danger, don't pass the objective test and be found not guilty.

I personally don't think there was any intent to kill that night, however do think there was intent for GBH by several of the defendants.

I agree with you re the original intent.

I think they got carried away with the “hunt” so the speak and it got out of hand.

 

[bobbymkii]

I agree with you re the original intent.

I think they got carried away with the “hunt” so the speak and it got out of hand.

I guess we'll find out properly when the judge instructs the jury as to exactly what the jurors need to conclude in order to find them guilty/not guilty of the charges.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

I guess we'll find out properly when the judge instructs the jury as to exactly what the jurors need to conclude in order to find them guilty/not guilty of the charges.

Definitely. I think that if it’s believed that the driving was dangerous with intent to cause serious harm (ramming, intimidation, that piece of hardware etc) then the decision/s may be easier to reach.

 

[Kasmeer]

It's a pity if there aren't any lower charges available, as I can see the four passengers getting not guilty if manslaughter is the lowest option. In fairness to them, I don't believe any of those four had any particular input in organising things, and probably just got sucked along with not much way to back out when things got out of hand while they were already inside speeding cars, but the amazing coincidence of three of them all becoming deaf, blind and void of any curiosity or rational thought has really turned me against them.

While I understand the legal logic Blynk Mist mentions above, about the feigned ignorance negating their responsibility, it makes me want to go the other way: as a non-lawyer and a petty human being, I'd be willing to give Patel the benefit of the doubt, providing his evidence matches the openness of his interviews (I hope I'm right that he hasn't given evidence yet; kinda losing track with so many people) - as having shown honesty about most of the events, then perhaps he might be correct when playing down his own role (I'm a bit sceptical but...), but the other three are clearly hiding things, which I'd say increases the likelihood that they're more involved than they say.

 

[HongKongPhooey]

It's a pity if there aren't any lower charges available, as I can see the four passengers getting not guilty if manslaughter is the lowest option. In fairness to them, I don't believe any of those four had any particular input in organising things, and probably just got sucked along with not much way to back out when things got out of hand while they were already inside speeding cars, but the amazing coincidence of three of them all becoming deaf, blind and void of any curiosity or rational thought has really turned me against them.

While I understand the legal logic Blynk Mist mentions above, about the feigned ignorance negating their responsibility, it makes me want to go the other way: as a non-lawyer and a petty human being, I'd be willing to give Patel the benefit of the doubt, providing his evidence matches the openness of his interviews (I hope I'm right that he hasn't given evidence yet; kinda losing track with so many people) - as having shown honesty about most of the events, then perhaps he might be correct when playing down his own role (I'm a bit sceptical but...), but the other three are clearly hiding things, which I'd say increases the likelihood that they're more involved than they say.

You‘ve described my thoughts exactly!

 

[Blynk Mist]

I'd be willing to give Patel the benefit of the doubt, providing his evidence matches the openness of his interviews

He’s next on the stand I think and wasn’t on it during the last trial, so it will be interesting to hear his testimony and cross examination next week.

Based on reading the legal definitions above and what we have heard so far, I predict mum, daughter and the two drivers will be found guilty of murder (possibly manslaughter for mum), I think Ameer and Sanaf went along equipped ‘as the muscle’, so could also be found guilty based on the GBH intent.

Natasha (and possibly Mo, depending on his testimony) I predict will be found not guilty for murder/manslaughter as whilst I don’t believe her testimony, it’s likely she was just there as a g/f with no GBH intent or did she directly “do a unlawful or dangerous act”.

If convicted for murder, because it was two people killed, it seems sentencing starts at 30 years (18yrs if manslaughter) but possibly reduced based on ‘An intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than kill’ mitigation being applied?

 

[HongKongPhooey]

He’s next on the stand I think and wasn’t on it during the last trial, so it will be interesting to hear his testimony and cross examination next week.

Based on reading the legal definitions above and what we have heard so far, I predict mum, daughter and the two drivers will be found guilty of murder (possibly manslaughter for mum), I think Ameer and Sanaf went along equipped ‘as the muscle’, so could also be found guilty based on the GBH intent.

Natasha (and possibly Mo, depending on his testimony) I predict will be found not guilty for murder/manslaughter as whilst I don’t believe her testimony, it’s likely she was just there as a g/f with no GBH intent or did she directly “do a unlawful or dangerous act”.

If convicted for murder, because it was two people killed, it seems sentencing starts at 30 years (18yrs if manslaughter) but possibly reduced based on ‘An intention to cause serious bodily harm rather than kill’ mitigation being applied?

I like your reasoning, agree with you!

 

[LouTennant]

TikTok murder trial court updates from day 35

Mohammed Patel denies murdering two men in a fatal crash on the A46 last year

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

I been away but have been keeping an eye on Nats testimony. Right now she is still using the "did not notice anything unusual that night" defence.

Its going to be interesting to see how the judge instructs the jury with regards to Natasha. I think its clear that she was not there to inflict ABH but on the same token she is obviously not being truthful. On the whole I think she is doing the right thing for herself. She does strike me as a bit of a "Deer caught in the headlights " type of girl so could get sympathy from quite a few jurors.

Ultimately im hoping that Mo Patel give us the "Twist" that we been waiting for. Most have been calling him a liar so he could go all out to save himself with some truth bombs.

JMO

 

[Legal]

So Mo Patel seems to be coming clean as people suspected on here. Unfortunately for him I think having the wheel brace or whatever it was will be v incriminating as he must have known it was to be some sort of weapon. Is he the last one of the defendants to take the stand?

 

[Blynk Mist]

Ultimately im hoping that Mo Patel give us the "Twist" that we been waiting for. Most have been calling him a liar so he could go all out to save himself with some truth bombs.

TikTok murder trial court updates from day 35

Mohammed Patel denies murdering two men in a fatal crash on the A46 last year

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

So he's mentioned a few damming things today below, which if I was in the Jury would be thinking, "that sounds more beleivable" and "he doesn't have a reason to make this up"

[BM: added Bold Italic to what sounds like key evidence]

Raees Jamal sounded 'urgent'​

During their phone call which lasted around 2 minutes, Mohammed Patel says that co-accused Raees Jamal sounded "urgent" about the situation. He was also asked to bring along a mask of face covering, but no reason was given.

Patel brought along with a go kart mask. He tells the court he did not question the need for the mask.

Patel did recognise Seat Leon​

After arriving at Tomlin Road, Mohammed Patel confirms that a Seat Leon arrived and he immediately recognised it as Natasha Akhtar's Seat Leon. Raees Jamal got out of the car and rolled up a mask he had been wearing.

Raees Jamal spoke with Patel about 'situation'​

After getting out of the Seat Leon, Mohammed Patel says Raees Jamal first went to the Audi TT and spoke with its occupants before he came over Patel himself. It was here where he described the "situation" as something involving a man and a Porsche garage.

[BM: The first defentant to actually admit what they were doing and isn't oblivious to everything....]

Audi and Skoda 'collided'​

On to the journey towards the A46 now and Mohammed Patel confirms there was contact between the Audi TT he was in and the Skoda Fabia containing the victims Saqib Hussain and Hashim Ijazuddin.

The incident, which Patel says "felt like a collision", caused the Audi's driver Rekan Karwan sweve the vehicle. Patel says he did this to "stabilise the car".

[BM: So he's totally implicating the Audi driver here too, I don't remember this being mentioned previously?]

Skoda 'swung into' Seat​

After the impact between the Skoda and Audi, the Seat Leon being driven by Raees Jamal then enters the picture along the A46, overtaking both vehicles before getting in front of the Skoda where it started "skidding".

Mohammed Patel says this then led the Skoda to attempt to overtake the Seat, but it "swung into" the Leon before making its way to the front of three vehicles.

[BM: This sounds new, not heard of the Seat skidding before have we?]

'Yeah, go on. Ram him'​

During the pursuit along the A46, a call between the Seat Leon and Audi TT was made where it is alleged that Raees Jamal said: "If were going to stop him we have to ram him."

That was met with some reaction by Rekan Karwan in the Audi. According to Mohammed Patel, he said his fellow passenger told Raees Jamal: "Yeah, go on. Ram him."

[BM: There were two other passengers (Mum & Daughter).... I suspect he was refering to daughter here(?) and completely dropping her in it here.]

Skoda 'flew' over the barrier​

Following two impacts between the Seat Leon and Skoda Fabia, the Skoda then careered off the A46 and ultimately hit a tree.

Questioned about this by Adam Kane KC, Mohammed Patel said he saw Skoda 'fly' over the barrier. He said: "I think it hit the railing first and then it went over. I heard twigs breaking and everything."

[BM: I believe he's the only defendant that has actually admitted seing the crash?]