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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Alyce said:
The jury has previously been instructed by the judge not to take the statements of any of the defendants as evidence against any of the other defendants.



www.birminghammail.co.uk

TikTok star Mahek Bukhari murder trial day eight court updates

The jury has been watching police interviews with some of the defendants
www.birminghammail.co.uk www.birminghammail.co.uk
Click to expand...
Yes, I just found it too, on page 8 of this thread. The last sentence here.

Raees Jamal's barrister suggests last collision between cars was 13 seconds before tree crash​

Referring to a comment on the 999 recording, Mr Smith suggests the damage DS Coe found on the Seat was consisted with the Seat rear-ending the Skoda 13 seconds before the crash and he suggests that was the final collision, a full 13 seconds before the crash into the tree that killed the two young men.
He said: "I want to suggest that is the collision point and it took place 13 seconds before the Skoda hit the tree."
DS Coe replied: "It could have been a collision point" and said there could have been a further collision in addition.
Mr Smith asks if there should be more damage on the Seat Leon if, as one of the defendants said in his police interview, the Seat "dragged" the Skoda along the road. DS Coe said: "I imagine, yes."
The jury has previously been instructed by the judge not to take the statements of any of the defendants as evidence against any of the other defendants.
 
It just seems such a strange thing to say, we ve followed many cases with more than one defendant and never heard the judge instruct that.
 
RusselSprout said:
It just seems such a strange thing to say, we ve followed many cases with more than one defendant and never heard the judge instruct that.
Click to expand...
I think it's called hearsay evidence. I could say 'he told me he killed xyz' and that doesn't make it true, so hearsay evidence is usually not allowed into evidence. In this case it probably made it so complicated with all the defendants interviews, they decided to let it in with a very strict instruction not to take any of it as proof of the guilt of any of them. The prosecution is presenting evidence independent of the defendants' statements.

I think, could be wrong.
 
Tortoise said:
I think it's called hearsay evidence. I could say 'he told me he killed xyz' and that doesn't make it true, so hearsay evidence is usually not allowed into evidence. In this case it probably made it so complicated with all the defendants interviews, they decided to let it in with a very strict instruction not to take any of it as proof of the guilt of any of them. The prosecution is presenting evidence independent of the defendants' statements.

I think, could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I just googled as it's an interesting point and I found this from the CPS website. See the 2nd exception:

( Competence and Compellability | The Crown Prosecution Service )



Definition of Competency​

A witness is competent if he or she can lawfully be called to give evidence. The principle is set out in Section 53(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA 1999): “At every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence”.

There are two exceptions:

  • A person is not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings if it appears to the Court that they are unable to understand questions put to them as a witness and give answers to them which can be understood [Section 53(3) of the YJCEA 1999].
  • A person charged in criminal proceedings is not competent to give evidence in the proceedings for the prosecution (whether he is the only person, or is one of two or more persons, charged in the proceedings) (Section 53 (4) of the YJCEA 1999). A co-accused can only give evidence for the prosecution once he or she ceases to be a co-accused (for example, following a guilty plea).
 
Legal said:
I just googled as it's an interesting point and I found this from the CPS website. See the 2nd exception:

( Competence and Compellability | The Crown Prosecution Service )



Definition of Competency​

A witness is competent if he or she can lawfully be called to give evidence. The principle is set out in Section 53(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA 1999): “At every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence”.

There are two exceptions:

  • A person is not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings if it appears to the Court that they are unable to understand questions put to them as a witness and give answers to them which can be understood [Section 53(3) of the YJCEA 1999].
  • A person charged in criminal proceedings is not competent to give evidence in the proceedings for the prosecution (whether he is the only person, or is one of two or more persons, charged in the proceedings) (Section 53 (4) of the YJCEA 1999). A co-accused can only give evidence for the prosecution once he or she ceases to be a co-accused (for example, following a guilty plea).
Click to expand...
I'm just a bit confused by the references there to the youth part of the title of the act. (youth justice and criminal evidence act).
 
Tortoise said:
I'm just a bit confused by the references there to the youth part of the title of the act. (youth justice and criminal evidence act).
Click to expand...
oh yes. good spot! That is confusing, as it also says whatever their age. I'm not sure then...
 
Tortoise said:
I'm just a bit confused by the references there to the youth part of the title of the act. (youth justice and criminal evidence act).
Click to expand...

Not my area, but I'm curious and did some googling too. The YJCEA seems to cover any witness who might be considered vulnerable or intimidated. Being a child is one obvious reason for that, but there are others. I may be wide of the mark, but I'm wondering if there's a suggestion that one or more of the defendants have been intimidating their co-accused, so that the court has decided it's best just to discount the testimony of any of them in relation to each other.

The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999: achieving best evidence? - PubMed
 
details_close.gif
2​
T20227026
T20227027
T20227046
T20227059​
ameer jamal
ansreen bukhari
mahek bukhari
mohammed patel
natasha akhtar
raees jamal
rekan karwan
sanaf gulamustafa​
Details:Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:03
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 3 Sworn - 10:10
https://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/Leicester-Crown-Court.php
 
2​
T20227026
T20227027
T20227046
T20227059​
ameer jamal
ansreen bukhari
mahek bukhari
mohammed patel
natasha akhtar
raees jamal
rekan karwan
sanaf gulamustafa​
Details:Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 10:03
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 3 Sworn - 10:10
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 10:52
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:13
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 7 Sworn - 11:01
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 11:23
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 11:35 - 11:26
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 8 Sworn - 11:45
Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 12:04
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 12:25 - 12:10
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 12:27
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 14:00 - 12:41
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 1 Continues - 14:07


 

Round up of Thursday's evidence​

Alan Taylor, a worker for the company which leased the Audi Mahek Bukhari was driving on the day Mr Hussain and Mr Ijazuddin died, has told the court there was 'no evidence' the vehicle had been involved in a collision on onboard crash recording device. Read more here.
www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Day 13 court updates from murder trial of TikTok's Mahek Bukhari

The prosecution case against the eight defendants is continuing
www.leicestermercury.co.uk www.leicestermercury.co.uk
 

Day 12 gets underway with more cross-examination of Police Sergeant Christopher Coe​

PS Christopher Coe, the collision investigator, is back in the witness box as the trial continues. The judge begins by apologising for the delay.
Leonard Smith KC, Raees Jamal's barrister, is asking PS Coe questions from the jury about the mechanics of the crash.

Why did ramming vehicle on right make it move right?​

The first of the jury's questions is about how the Seat Leon hitting the Skoda Fabia on the Skoda's rear right led to the Skoda swerving right instead of being pushed left. Mr Smith asked the officer: "Wouldn't it push it towards the left grass verge?" PS Coe answered: "No."
He described the PIT manoeuvre, used by police to stop cars by ramming them. He said: "Becuase of the point of the application of force, the vehicle tends to rotate. If it's from the right, the car will tend to rotate clockwise."
He explained that if it was rotated clockwise it would be facing towards the central reservation and tend to aim towards the central reservation.

Rekan Karwan's barrister is next to ask questions​

Mark Rainsford KC is now questioning PS Coe. He asked: "Your entire life is dedicated to this type of work?"
PS Coe replied: "That's a bit of a sweeping statement." Mr Rainsford said: "Obviously you have a personal life as well."
www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Day 13 court updates from murder trial of TikTok's Mahek Bukhari

The prosecution case against the eight defendants is continuing
www.leicestermercury.co.uk www.leicestermercury.co.uk
 

No evidence from Audi investigation relevant to that evening​

Rekan Karwan, who is represented by Mr Smith, was said to be the driver of Mahek Bukhari's Audi TT around the time of the fatal collision. Police Sergeant Coe confirmed that, after the Audi was examined for evidence by the forensic team, his own investigation in the mechanical state of the Audi found nothing relevant to the night of the crash.

Questions about thud noise heard on 999 recording​

Mr Rainsford is asking Sergeant Coe about a "thud" heard on the 999 call recording. Using his estimated speeds of the Skoda, Sergeant Coe estimates the thud is about 78 to 81 metres before the Skoda hit the tree.
The Audi data shows that it was probably about 103 metres from the tree at that point and therefore at least 22 metres away from the Skoda when the thud was heard, and at most 25 metres. Sergeant Coe is using a calcuator to answer the questions.

Ammeer Jamal's barrister asking questions​

Next in order to cross-examine Sergeant Coe is Rajiv Mennon KC, barrister for Ammeer Jamal, who was a passenger in the Seat Leon when the crash happened. He asked about the front door tinted windows on the Seat Leon which he described as being "way under manufacturing standards". He then asked about the rear door windows. Sergeant Coe responded that he did not measure those windows but they appeared to be at about the same level of tinting, limiting what someone in the back of the car would be able to see.
www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Day 13 court updates from murder trial of TikTok's Mahek Bukhari

The prosecution case against the eight defendants is continuing
www.leicestermercury.co.uk www.leicestermercury.co.uk
 

Passengers might not have noticed the collision as the Seat Leon rammed the Skoda​

Natasha Akhtar's barrister, Timothy Raggart KC, asked Sergeant Coe if passengers in the Seat Leon would have been aware of the Seat ramming the Skoda and Sergeant Coe confirms they might not have noticed.
Mr Raggat compared the feel of deceleration as the Seat hit the Skoda as being like a "clumsy gear change" and Sergeant Coe agreed.

'Very cramped' in the back of the Audi TT​

Now Mohammed Patel's barrister, Sarah Vine KC, is asking the officer questions. Patel was in the back of the Audi during the incident. Sergeant Coe told the jury he sat in the back and it was very cramped for adults. He said: "I'm 6ft 2, 6ft 3, and I had my chin on my chest."
He said he recalled a sign on the Audi's door stating that people more than about 147cm in height should not sit in the back because of the risk of the boot coming down and hitting them on the head.
www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Day 13 court updates from murder trial of TikTok's Mahek Bukhari

The prosecution case against the eight defendants is continuing
www.leicestermercury.co.uk www.leicestermercury.co.uk
 

Agreed facts to be read out​

The jury is back in court for day 13. To begin with they're going to hear some agreed facts. That means the things the prosecutors say that the defence barristers for the eight defendants all agree are true.
It will likely include the details of who was sitting in each car and who was driving at the time of the pursuit up the A46.

Jury hears gruesome details of Saqib's injuries​

Daren Samat, a prosecution barrister, reveals details about a post mortem examination carried out on the remains of Saqib Hussain. The report by pathologist Dr Stuart Hamilton states the body had "extensive burns" and had been recovered "partially ejected from a motor vehicle".
The main injury to Saqib, he reported, was an "almost complete traumatic amputation of the right leg, which was likely the cause of death". He added there were no signs of smoke inhalation which meant the "burns were most likely post-mortem", so he had died before the fire that tore through the car had started.

Hashim tested for drugs​

The driver of the Skoda Fabia, Hashim Ijazuddin, had a similar combination of burns but no signs of smoke inhalation, so he was also most likely also dead before his body was burned in the fire. The pathologist concluded Hashim died from injuries suffered in the crash "although the investigation was hampered by the burn injuries".
Toxicology tests found Hashim had "been exposed" to cannabis smoke before his death but the report added that it was not possible to say when he had smoked the drug or how much he had consumed.
It added the "presence of cannaboids does not suggest Mr Ijazuddin was a regular or heavy user of cannabis."

No dispute about the identity of the drivers​

The details of who was driving the two cars the eight defendants were in are included in the agreed facts. So defendant Rekan Karwan fully admits being behind the wheel of the Audi TT when the crash happened and Raees Jamal admits he was driving the Seat Leon at the time.
And all parties also agree that the various CCTV footage, ANPR camera images, phone location data and other technology evidence is, basically, what the prosecution say it is.
www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Day 13 court updates from murder trial of TikTok's Mahek Bukhari

The prosecution case against the eight defendants is continuing
www.leicestermercury.co.uk www.leicestermercury.co.uk
 

Desperate messages from Saqib to Ansreen read out in court​

Prosecutor Daren Samat is reading out various text messages the police found and in them Saqib sends numerous desperate messages to Ansreen in the days and hours before his death on the A46.
One states: "Things are going to get out of hand but you don't want to listen. All I want to do is speak to you for two minutes." He goes on to threaten to tell Ansreen's husband about their affair.

List of expenses found on Saqib's phone​

A note on Saqib's phone revealed his calcuations on what he believed was more than £3,000 he had spent on Ansreen Bukhari during their three-year relationship.
The items included takeaways, trainers, nights in hotels, petrol and a coat. His note added: "£3,000 altogether".

Threat texts revealed​

In another message to Ansreen, Saqib said: "All the money I spent on you. How could you?
"Or I could message your husband. I love you so much. But once I've got my money I'm gone forever."
The jury also heard there were three "explict" videos of Ansreen on Saqib's phone. The jury has previously been told how Saqib had threatened to make his videos of Ansreen "viral" if she did not pay him at least £2,000.
www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Day 13 court updates from murder trial of TikTok's Mahek Bukhari

The prosecution case against the eight defendants is continuing
www.leicestermercury.co.uk www.leicestermercury.co.uk
 

'How have I been so stupid, Ansy?'​

Other messages have also been read out to the jury. On February 9 - less than 48 hours before he died - he wrote: "Why is it taking me so long to realize how precious you are to me. How have I been so stupid, Ansy?"
Another the next morning said: "Good morning, Ansy. I hope you are good. I need to speak to you. I can't get my head around this.
"Three years of speaking to you every day - how much I loved you to bits."
Another said: "I'm losing my mind and going crazy. Shutting me out is making things worse. We really need to talk before it's too late."

'I just want to kill myself'​

Saqib expressed his love for Ansreen Bukhari and thoughts of self-harm in his later messages, which were sent on February 10. By 1.35am on February 11 he had been killed in the crash.
He said: "Stop pushing me and forcing me to do something stupid. I can break your marriage and family and everything."
Another read: "My whole life's ****ed up right now. You can't imagine - I just want to kill myself."

'You're my first love'​

In the messages he reminisced about how they had been together since he was 19 and he was about to turn 22. He said: "My head's all over the place. You're my first love and my whole life's messed up .
"I was 19 when we started speaking and now I'm going to be 22. You mean the world to me. You can't do this to me."
Later, at about 7.20pm - six hours before the chase up the A46 - he told her: "I spent money on you. I want you to sort it like you said you would."
His messages also stated that he had not been sleeping or eating and that his whole family had recently found out about his relationship with her.
A further message read: "Please don't leave me. We can't leave each other. You said you would always be there for me.
"I feel like doing something stupid to myself."
His next message said: "I feel like I'm going to die, Ansy."

Police in Oxfordshire spoke to Saqib about threatening another woman he had met​

Another of the agreed facts is about police reports against Saqib less than a month before his death. Thames Valley Police said they received a report from a woman who had met Saqib on a night out and given him her phone number.
He texted her but she told him she had a partner and didn't want to see him. He bombarded her with texts and even threatened to "hurt" her and "smash her car up", prosecutor Daren Samat told the jury.
She was receiving between 15 and 20 calls a day from Saqib, she told police. Mr Samat said: "Saqib Hussain was threatening to come to her house and smash up her car and she said Saqib Hussain had told her to watch out he didn't see her in the street."
She complained to police a second time but said she didn't want to have Saqib arrested. Mr Samat said the woman claimed he had again threatened to "smash up her car and hurt her".
www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Day 13 court updates from murder trial of TikTok's Mahek Bukhari

The prosecution case against the eight defendants is continuing
www.leicestermercury.co.uk www.leicestermercury.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 1,814 (members: 194, guests: 1,620)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
1,620
Total visitors
1,814
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,574
Messages
18,189,178
Members
233,445
Latest member
behindthecrime
Back
Top