He might hope, but he won't get!DBM
ETA I don't believe this will absolve the others and I find it difficult to attribute noble motives to Urfan Sharif in doing this. So much damaging information has been presented to the court - could he, advised by his lawyers, be hoping for a more lenient sentence?
So that leaves the bite mark and the burns to Sara's bottom - injuries caused by B?![]()
Sara Sharif's father 'takes full responsibility' for death of daughter
Taxi driver Urfan Sharif, 42, who is on trial at the Old Bailey, confessed that he had battered the 10-year-old schoolgirl with a cricket bat and a metal pole.www.dailymail.co.uk
Caroline Carberry, KC, defending his wife Beinash Batool, 30, asked: 'Did you beat her? Did you inflict injuries on her'
Speaking softly in the dock, he nodded, saying: 'Yes.' He added: 'I take full responsibility.'
He denied biting or burning his daughter when asked to look at a folder detailing the injuries on her body. 'I can't do that. I can't look at it. I take full responsibility,' he said.
Ms Carberry said: 'Did you use the cricket bat to inflict these injuries.'
He said: 'Yes ma'am.'
She went on: 'Did you use a white metal pole to cause these marks.'
He answered: 'Yes ma'am.'
He said he took 'full responsibility' for breaking bones in her neck, but he did not know if he used a belt to cause the injury.
Batool fled the dock in tears as he confessed. The Old Bailey trial was paused this morning after the dramatic admissions.
Sharif, Batool, and Sara's uncle Faisal Malik, 29, formerly of Hammond Road, Woking, deny Sara's murder and causing or allowing her death.
I agree. B had PR for Sara, so she is also resposible for her well being.Highly doubt they will be acquitted both fled the scene of a crime and both allowed the death of a child especially bienash as she shows she was aware of the damage in messages to her sisters
The BBC report (linked above) mentions scalding as well.So that leaves the bite mark and the burns to Sara's bottom - injuries caused by B?
He's asked for the charge to be put again, but denied that he intended to kill. To me, that looks like he intends to plead not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter, but we'll see.
Because B and U also have PR.Olga Sharif, as the biological mother of Sara Sharif and her 13-year-old brother, held Parental Responsibility (PR) for both children. In the UK, a mother automatically has PR unless it has been legally removed through processes such as specific court orders.
In 2019, a family court ruled that Sara and her older brother should live with their father, Urfan Sharif. This decision pertained to the children's living arrangements and did not necessarily affect Olga's PR status. Therefore, unless there was a specific court order removing her PR, Olga would have retained her parental rights and responsibilities. Does anyone know if this was removed?
Since the PR encompasses the legal rights and duties a parent has concerning their child's upbringing, including decisions about education, health care, and welfare. Even if a child resides with one parent, the other parent typically retains PR unless a court decides otherwise.
So unless Olga had the PR removed, how could BB and US take Sara off school?
Beinash Batool sought legal advice regarding Child Arrangement Orders (In February 2022, she consulted solicitors who provided guidance on non-molestation orders and Child Arrangement Orders. Also she reached out to them via email, inquiring about the necessary forms to obtain a court order concerning the children and stepchildren). Had she filled in the form and gained CAO, Olga would have been notified.
I do think they all three are guilty of her death. I honestly dont care who was left holding the smoking gun. They all are responsible (JMO)
Rather than spending time on her phone texting her relatives, B should have been calling the police and Social Service!
(IMOO)
Its still murder. Its obvious if you hit a young child with a cricket bat (and other weapons), that it is going to cause serious harm.From the Daily Mail article linked to above -
"He asked to sit down and wept as Ms Carberry asked: 'She died because you beat her. So that is true?'
He said: 'Yes ma'am. I take full responsibility.
But he shook his head when asked if he intended to cause serious harm or to kill her."
So it looks like he's still denying that it's murder, so I think the trial carries on. Effectively, he's just admitted to Sara's manslaughter.
I've never seen manslaughter mentioned as one of the charges. It can only be murder.He's asked for the charge to be put again, but denied that he intended to kill. To me, that looks like he intends to plead not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter, but we'll see.
Pleading not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter is a possible plea in England, even if manslaughter isn't on the indictment.I've never seen manslaughter mentioned as one of the charges. It can only be murder.
I presume that is because other injuries were inflicted by another person/people.B as a step parent wouldn't have PR unless there was a specific order in place saying so.
I agree with comments that there is still a LOT U isn't taking responsibility for IMO.
Thanks, I've seen that plea at the start of a trial just never in the middle. I'd be ashamed of the prosecution if they accepted it.Pleading not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter is a possible plea in England, even if manslaughter isn't on the indictment.
"If a defendant pleads not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter without that appearing as a count on the indictment, that plea is a nullity if the prosecution does not accept it."
I agree, which is why I would be suprised if the prosecution accept a guilty plea to a lesser offence at this late stage.Its still murder. Its obvious if you hit a young child with a cricket bat (and other weapons), that it is going to cause serious harm.