GUILTY UK - Sara Sharif, 10, found murdered in house, Surrey, Aug 2023 *POIs ARREST* #4

[Nikynoo]

That is very interesting indeed @Nikynoo . That seems like a loophole in the justice system for accomplices of crimes . "Well your honor I was there but I didn't partake" .
What do you think ?

And does that not sum up maliks defence and bienash's for that matter if it cannot be proven they partook in the actual violence and could claim they were innocent bystanders powerless to do anything and are not under any legal obligations to act .?

I'm just really interested and these are genuine questions I'm asking you as you are in a better position to answer by your profession. Thank you for your input appreciate it

The question would be, why was that person present? Were they with the perpetrator and knew that a crime was going to be commissioned, or were they just walking past when the crime was being committed? The first could possibly be held accountable as an accessory, but the second would not.

In respect to B and M, they were part of the household so must have known that the unlawful acts were happening. In the case of B, there has been evidence that she may have had a hand in those acts. Not much has been said about M’s part in all this but it does not matter for the charge or causing or allowing the death of a child. See the folllowing requirements.

​

(1)A person (“D”) is guilty of an offence if—

(a)a child or vulnerable adult (“V”) dies [F2or suffers serious physical harm] as a result of the unlawful act of a person who—

(i)was a member of the same household as V, and

(ii)had frequent contact with him,

(b)D was such a person at the time of that act,

(c)at that time there was a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of such a person, and

(d)either D was the person whose act caused [F3the death or serious physical harm] or—

(i)D was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk mentioned in paragraph (c),

(ii)D failed to take such steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from the risk, and

(iii)the act occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

(2)The prosecution does not have to prove whether it is the first alternative in subsection (1)(d) or the second (sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii)) that applies.

(3)If D was not the mother or father of V—

(a)D may not be charged with an offence under this section if he was under the age of 16 at the time of the act that caused [F4the death or serious physical harm];

(b)for the purposes of subsection (1)(d)(ii) D could not have been expected to take any such step as is referred to there before attaining that age.

(4)For the purposes of this section—

(a)a person is to be regarded as a “member” of a particular household, even if he does not live in that household, if he visits it so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him as a member of it;

(b)where V lived in different households at different times, “the same household as V” refers to the household in which V was living at the time of the act that caused [F5the death or serious physical harm].

(5)For the purposes of this section an “unlawful” act is one that—

(a)constitutes an offence, or

(b)would constitute an offence but for being the act of—

(i)a person under the age of ten, or

(ii)a person entitled to rely on a defence of insanity.

Paragraph (b) does not apply to an act of D.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

An Act to amend Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; to make provision about homicide; to make common assault an arrestable offence; to make provision for the payment of surcharges by...

www.legislation.gov.uk

See in particular 1d and 4a.

 

[crystalline]

This whole case makes me sick to the core I<modsnip - off topic>

I did notice the picture at the airport on route out of the UK, the other children seemed to be holding hands together/crossed hands. This struck me as strange as not many children of that age can stay so ‘composed’. Maybe nothing, but just felt very controlled.

Just my own opinion.

 

[su5ie]

The question would be, why was that person present? Were they with the perpetrator and knew that a crime was going to be commissioned, or were they just walking past when the crime was being committed? The first could possibly be held accountable as an accessory, but the second would not.

In respect to B and M, they were part of the household so must have known that the unlawful acts were happening. In the case of B, there has been evidence that she may have had a hand in those acts. Not much has been said about M’s part in all this but it does not matter for the charge or causing or allowing the death of a child. See the folllowing requirements.

​

(1)A person (“D”) is guilty of an offence if—

(a)a child or vulnerable adult (“V”) dies [F2or suffers serious physical harm] as a result of the unlawful act of a person who—

(i)was a member of the same household as V, and

(ii)had frequent contact with him,

(b)D was such a person at the time of that act,

(c)at that time there was a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of such a person, and

(d)either D was the person whose act caused [F3the death or serious physical harm] or—

(i)D was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk mentioned in paragraph (c),

(ii)D failed to take such steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from the risk, and

(iii)the act occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

(2)The prosecution does not have to prove whether it is the first alternative in subsection (1)(d) or the second (sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii)) that applies.

(3)If D was not the mother or father of V—

(a)D may not be charged with an offence under this section if he was under the age of 16 at the time of the act that caused [F4the death or serious physical harm];

(b)for the purposes of subsection (1)(d)(ii) D could not have been expected to take any such step as is referred to there before attaining that age.

(4)For the purposes of this section—

(a)a person is to be regarded as a “member” of a particular household, even if he does not live in that household, if he visits it so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard him as a member of it;

(b)where V lived in different households at different times, “the same household as V” refers to the household in which V was living at the time of the act that caused [F5the death or serious physical harm].

(5)For the purposes of this section an “unlawful” act is one that—

(a)constitutes an offence, or

(b)would constitute an offence but for being the act of—

(i)a person under the age of ten, or

(ii)a person entitled to rely on a defence of insanity.

Paragraph (b) does not apply to an act of D.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

An Act to amend Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; to make provision about homicide; to make common assault an arrestable offence; to make provision for the payment of surcharges by...

www.legislation.gov.uk

See in particular 1d and 4a.

Thank you so much for this . It gives a better insight into how charges are brought and what constitutes as allowing the abuse or death of a child .

 

[Dotta]

We will get to know at 12.00 if B will take the stand.

"Sharif,
said the barrister,
had used a 'menacing tone'
in some of the text messages between him and Batool
which were shown in court.

Sharif said that he and Batool were experiencing marital difficulties at the time,
to which Mr Jones said:

'You can’t divorce Sara, can you?
But you can beat seven bells out of her,
and we know that’s what you did'."

Guildford Dragon NEWS

Guildford News

guildford-dragon.com

"beat seven bells out of someone"?
Wow, I've never heard this phrase before.

 

[Doesitmakesense]

We will get to know at 12.00 if B will take the stand.

Damn 3 hrs, that's passed my bedtime

 

[Dotta]

Damn 3 hrs, that's passed my bedtime

We will still be here with reports when you wake up.
No worries.
We are not going anywhere, are we?

 

[Doesitmakesense]

We will still be here with reports when you wake up.
No worries.
We are not going anywhere, are we?

Gives me something to read drinking my morning coffee

 

[Nikynoo]

We will get to know at 12.00 if B will take the stand.

"Sharif,
said the barrister,
had used a 'menacing tone'
in some of the text messages between him and Batool
which were shown in court.

Sharif said that he and Batool were experiencing marital difficulties at the time,
to which Mr Jones said:

'You can’t divorce Sara, can you?
But you can beat seven bells out of her,
and we know that’s what you did'."

Guildford Dragon NEWS

Guildford News

guildford-dragon.com

"beat seven bells out of someone"?
Wow, I've never heard this phrase before.

there is usually a two lettered and four lettered word after bells. No idea where it comes from.

 

[Pinkestpanther]

Beat seven bells out of someone - this originates from the Navy. Meaning beating someone nearly to death (the 8th Bell would be the change of watch). It's also a boxing term.

 

[Noseyjosie]

there is usually a two lettered and four lettered word after bells. No idea where it comes from.

The following explanation of the phrase to knock seven bells out of somebody is from the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition, December 2023):

Apparently originally with allusion to the nautical tradition of sounding ‘eight bells’ to mark a sailor’s death (i.e. sounding the ship’s bell eight times, the usual signal for the end of a watch); hence ‘seven bells’ would carry the implication ‘almost to death’.

 

[MadeleineMaxwell]

But in this case it was eight bells

 

[Nikynoo]

But in this case it was eight bells

It was indeed. Thanks for explaining @Noseyjosie and @Pinkestpanther , you learn something new everyday!

 

[su5ie]

This whole case makes me sick to the core <modsnip - off topic>

I did notice the picture at the airport on route out of the UK, the other children seemed to be holding hands together/crossed hands. This struck me as strange as not many children of that age can stay so ‘composed’. Maybe nothing, but just felt very controlled.

Just my own opinion.

I think most people particularly citizens whom regard children as deserving of a good and happy childhood ,where by they are nutured and loved. Are sickened when it comes to crimes of this sort . It goes against the grain of a moral society imo .

<modsnip - off topic>

 

[Alyce]

www.thelawpages.com

 

[Dotta]

If uncle
(Faisal Shahzad Malik)

from the Law pages above

is U's brother,
how come his surname is Malik,
and not Sharif as brother's and father's?

Maybe he is a cousin?
But treated as a brother?
Or he took mother's surname?
Hmmm....

JMO

 

[VioletLilac]

If uncle
(Faisal Shahzad Malik)
is U's brother,
how come his surname is Malik,
and not Sharif as brother's and father's?

Maybe he is a cousin?
But treated as a brother?
Or he took mother's surname?
Hmmm....

JMO

Good point, I hadn't noticed that. Maybe they have different naming conventions. Or he could have a different dad.

 

[Sooty]

Stepmother and uncle decline to give evidence in Sara Sharif murder...

Lawyers for Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik indicated that neither would give evidence in their defence.

www.dailymail.co.uk

SMH

Cowards

 

[Dotta]

Stepmother and uncle decline to give evidence in Sara Sharif murder...

Lawyers for Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik indicated that neither would give evidence in their defence.

www.dailymail.co.uk

From the link above:

He said: “That’s how bad it got, Mr Sharif. She’s taped up, she soils herself, you have to come home and you beat her for soiling herself. It’s disgraceful. The nappies were a solution for restraint.”

The prosecutor said: “If Sara was sick, vomited herself, ‘I’m not cleaning her up’, Batool would say, ‘it’s your problem, Urfan’.

“So you had to do it and that made you furious didn’t it, so you would beat her for it.”

Sharif replied: “I did a few times.”

 

[Nikynoo]

Stepmother and uncle decline to give evidence in Sara Sharif murder...

Lawyers for Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik indicated that neither would give evidence in their defence.

www.dailymail.co.uk

from the above link.
On Monday, Mr Justice Cavanagh sent the jury away until Wednesday morning, saying he would give them directions in law before barristers began their closing speeches.

 

[FlamingLily]

from the above link.
On Monday, Mr Justice Cavanagh sent the jury away until Wednesday morning, saying he would give them directions in law before barristers began their closing speeches.

Any thoughts from you lovely legal beagles on how it looks to the jury that batool and malik won't testify? We all expected it. But hopefully won't strengthen their case?