GUILTY UK - Sara Sharif, 10, found murdered in house, Surrey, Aug 2023 *POIs ARREST* #4
- Thread starter Luwin
- Start date
- Status
There could be historic doorbell data another reason for the phones to be left in Pakistan IMO
It's listed at the top now - does that mean it's on?Can't find any updates Dotta - not even listed on the Law Pages yet.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,031
- Reaction score
- 61,268
Remorse!! Pass me the sick bucket . Only remorse those trio have is in the getting caught imo .It seems to be part of Mr Mian's desperate attempt to salvage something from Urfan Sharif's earlier defence blaming everything on Beinash, a sort of recap of the 'that psycho over there' bit. The two preceding paragraphs in the Guildford Dragon account follow a suggestion that Urfan had been overcome with remorse as a result of his days giving evidence, implying that this caused his volte face:
'He said that this would all have taken its toll on Urfan and asks the jury to consider the credibility and reliability of what he said as a result and emphasised that Sharif hadn’t meant to cause Sara serious harm and referred to the injuries he denied causing, including the burns, the bite marks and the hooding, and said: “Let’s face it, we all know who those bite marks belong to”.
The defence counsel went on to say that Batool was somebody capable of creating a lie and sustaining it over years, referring to the twins she claimed to have had in a previous relationship that later transpired to not exist.
He said that the only person who could say what happened to Sara on the Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday leading up her death was Batool and pointed to her in the box.'
I think the defence counsels for Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool have ensured that both of them will be convicted of murder - they can't possibly exonerate their own clients. JMO
If they had an ounce of empathy for Sara they would have got help earlier for the horrendous injuries she suffered over a period of two years . And what remorseful parent leaves their dead child that was caused by their hand to save themselves.
The sooner the better the judge hands down the sentences and then we will see how remorseful he is if he doesn't instruct his counsel to appeal
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2020
- Messages
- 270
- Reaction score
- 2,076
Sara Sharif's father 'controlling the narrative', jury told
Michael Ivers KC says the evidence against Sara's uncle Faisal Malik is "entirely circumstantial".
www.bbc.co.uk
FlamingLily
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2024
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 785
Hate his use of "laughable" about a guy whose DNA was found linked to the deceased and who paid for the guilty escape. His use of laughable is laughable!Sara Sharif's father 'controlling the narrative', jury told
Michael Ivers KC says the evidence against Sara's uncle Faisal Malik is "entirely circumstantial".
Also,
this bit:
"You don’t have to be Mystic Meg ..."
sounds very patronizing IMO.
SMH
JMO
Sara Sharif's father 'controlling the narrative', jury told
Michael Ivers KC says the evidence against Sara's uncle Faisal Malik is "entirely circumstantial".
www.bbc.com
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2023
- Messages
- 494
- Reaction score
- 4,534
I think there's a good case against Malik for causing or allowing the death of a child. He took an active part in the attempt to put themselves beyond the juristiction of the English courts by flying to Pakistan. He was the one who bought the tickets. These actions make no sense if he was unaware that something untoward had happened. Where's the evidence that he's guilty of murder, though? He had a 100 mile round trip most days to Portsmouth and back plus his shifts at McDonalds. How often was he there when the children were still up? Presumeably the phone location evidence will give the jury some idea of this. The forensic evidence connecting him to the violence is weak and if the bar to be passed for murder is 'participating in or encouraging' the violence, then where is the evidence that he encouraged anybody to do anything?Sara Sharif's father 'controlling the narrative', jury told
Michael Ivers KC says the evidence against Sara's uncle Faisal Malik is "entirely circumstantial".
On balance I think he was aware of some of what was going on, but that's not enough to convict him of murder, in my opinion.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 11,197
- Reaction score
- 74,107
Is the Court sitting today??
Is the Juror all right?
I can finally sigh in relief when 3 keys are thrown away!
If you know what I mean
JMO
I am with you. All three were adults in the house where a child was tortured to death, all three are culpable, and I don't know what the jury would decide about Malik but both Urfan and Batool deserve the keys to be thrown away forever. Fingers crossed.
You're probably right.
But I can't believe he wasn't fully aware, given the size of the house.
I also don't believe he did the journey to Portsmouth most days. What does the attendance figure given by Mr Ivers really mean? Could attendance include Zoom classes? It's all very unsatisfactory because we have so little information.
The neighbour testified that she saw him often in/around the house!
So...
I don't need to be a "Mystic Meg" (whoever she is),
(and quoting a lawyer)
to suppose he knew a lot!
"Mrs Redwin told the court that another adult man moved in the house in December 2022, who she later learned was Urfan Sharif’s brother.
She said that
he didn’t go out very much."
JMO
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 11,197
- Reaction score
- 74,107
Personally, I believe Malik is no better than the Sharifs and I am horrified that one day he'd have own kids, but the main fault lies equally with the dad and the SM. They created that atmosphere and perpetrated it.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,031
- Reaction score
- 61,268
I agree. Poor choice of wording - along with his Mystic Meg reference.
He seems to be following the same line as BB's Counsel. Blame it all on Urfan and perhaps the Jury won't think about the fact that his client, Malik, was living in a very crowded house for nearly 8 months - but never noticed that his niece was being abused and beaten on a regular basis.
I've found some legal authority on encouragement and participation
snippets -
"Can “doing nothing” still amount to “something” in a criminal trial?
[...]
A more recent example might be the range of circumstances in R v Andrus Giedraitis 2016 EWCA Crim 1887, where a death had occurred within a building as a result of an arson by the principal. The Court of Appeal found there to be sufficient evidence to infer encouragement by the appellant where he had:
i) Been ‘present” in company with the principle beforehand and afterwards.
ii) Returned to the scene of several occasions, even after the fire had been lit, together with the principal.
iii) Not sought to raise the alarm at any stage.
In such circumstances, it will purely be a question for the jury as to whether they find that it does or it does not, as a matter of fact, amount to encouragement [subject to the qualification that if no fair minded jury could properly reach that conclusion, the judge should withdraw the case].
[...]
However, the prosecution may still seek to rely upon any “inaction” as providing an inference of encouragement and even wider knowledge. [...]
In Coney (1882) 8.Q.B.D 534, the voluntary presence of spectators at an illegal prize fight was found to be capable of providing an inference of encouragement in the illegal activity, although not automatically or conclusively so-that was a matter for the jury. [...]
[Conclusion]
Equally, a failure to intervene or to alert the authorities may generate an inference of encouragement where it can be shown that D2 had an ability to exercise control over the situation, and deliberately chose not to."
www.mountfordchambers.com
snippets -
"Can “doing nothing” still amount to “something” in a criminal trial?
[...]
A more recent example might be the range of circumstances in R v Andrus Giedraitis 2016 EWCA Crim 1887, where a death had occurred within a building as a result of an arson by the principal. The Court of Appeal found there to be sufficient evidence to infer encouragement by the appellant where he had:
i) Been ‘present” in company with the principle beforehand and afterwards.
ii) Returned to the scene of several occasions, even after the fire had been lit, together with the principal.
iii) Not sought to raise the alarm at any stage.
In such circumstances, it will purely be a question for the jury as to whether they find that it does or it does not, as a matter of fact, amount to encouragement [subject to the qualification that if no fair minded jury could properly reach that conclusion, the judge should withdraw the case].
[...]
However, the prosecution may still seek to rely upon any “inaction” as providing an inference of encouragement and even wider knowledge. [...]
In Coney (1882) 8.Q.B.D 534, the voluntary presence of spectators at an illegal prize fight was found to be capable of providing an inference of encouragement in the illegal activity, although not automatically or conclusively so-that was a matter for the jury. [...]
[Conclusion]
Equally, a failure to intervene or to alert the authorities may generate an inference of encouragement where it can be shown that D2 had an ability to exercise control over the situation, and deliberately chose not to."
“Wrong place at the wrong time” - but when is “mere presence “ enough? - Mountford Chambers - London Barristers Chambers
“Wrong place at the wrong time” - but when is “mere presence “ enough?
www.mountfordchambers.com
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
