Father 'arranged Home Bargains acid attack on son amid custody row'
A three-year-old boy was squirted in the face with sulphuric acid in an attack organised by his father, who was involved in a protracted custody dispute with his estranged wife, a court heard.
The father is alleged to have plotted with six others to injure his son, because he wanted to "manufacture" evidence against his wife to show she was an "unfit mother".
Worcester Crown Court heard the youngster, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, suffered serious burns to his face and arm at the Home Bargains store in the city on July 21 last year.
His 40-year-old father is charged with conspiring to unlawfully or maliciously cast or throw sulphuric acid on or at the boy between June 1 and July 22, with intent to burn, maim, disfigure or disable the minor, or do some grievous bodily harm to him.
Also facing the same charge are Jabar Paktia, 42, of Newhampton Road, Wolverhampton; Adam Cech, 27, of Farnham Road, and Jan Dudi, 25, of Cranbrook Road, both Birmingham; Norbert Pulko, 22, of Sutherland Road, London; Martina Badiova, 22, of Newcombe Road, Handsworth, Birmingham and Saied Hussini, 42, of Wrottesley Road, London.
They all deny the allegation.
Jonathan Rees QC, prosecuting, described the incident as a "cowardly attack on a defenceless three-year-old boy" who was a making a "good recovery" from his injuries.
The prosecutor alleged the attack was carried out in a "blink of the eye" by Cech, who was accompanied by Dudi and Pulko, and was captured on CCTV.
It was not the first time the boy had been targeted - with an earlier incident allegedly taking place on July 13 and involving Pulko, Hussini and Badiova, the court heard.
"The prosecution allege that the driving force behind these events was in fact the father of the child," Mr Rees said.
"In April 2016 his wife had left him, taking their three children with her and, in due course, she issued divorce proceedings.
"The prosecution say that it will become apparent the first defendant took the separation badly."
Mr Rees said the father had been granted fortnightly supervised contact with his children but had launched legal proceedings for greater access.
"This application was being opposed by his wife.
"We say the evidence suggests that in an effort to ensure his application was successful he was willing to manufacture evidence of injuries to his children in an attempt to show that his wife was unable properly to care for them, in other words she was an unfit mother," he said.
"Although the prosecution are not required to prove motive against any of the defendants, we suggest that his desire to show his wife in a bad light may have provided at least some of the motivation for him organising this attack on his son.
"It would enable him to say to the court that the child had sustained nasty injuries while he was in the care of his mother.
"Whilst we say the attack had its roots in his unhappy domestic situation, we allege that he enlisted others to help him carry out his plan."
Mr Rees told the jury that six years earlier the mother had left her husband, but returned after three days to be accused of "humiliating him".
"He told her that he had spoken to an imam.
"He said that he had asked the imam whether he was allowed to kill his wife and his children in accordance with the religion, but the imam told him that he could not do that and was advised to pray instead," Mr Rees said.
"In the same vein, and in front of his wife, he threatened to take the children outside the UK to a Muslim country to have them killed.
"He also threatened to get someone else to kill his wife and the children."
Mr Rees added: "The prosecution suggest that the threats he made about having his children killed help provide an answer to one of the questions which arise in this case: what sort of a father can contemplate deliberately injuring one of his children?"
The father also hired a private detective to carry out surveillance on his wife.
The trial was adjourned until Wednesday.
