Blame game played out in court as Sara Sharif family sentenced over death

To the bitter end, Sara Sharif’s family argued over how much blame each should shoulder for her horrific abuse and murder.

On Tuesday, lawyers for her father, Urfan Sharif, 42, and stepmother, Beinash Batool, 30, had sought to mitigate their involvement, after they were found guilty of the 10-year-old’s murder.

Naeem Mian KC, for Sharif, called on Mr Justice Cavanagh to consider the case “dispassionately” despite the outpouring of public “anger, outrage and disgust” in the wake of the verdicts.

While Sharif “accepts responsibility for that which he did”, there had been no explanation for the “horrific” burns and bite marks on Sara’s body that he had denied inflicting, the court was told.

On Batool’s role, Mr Mian said: “They are equally as culpable and therefore your lordship ought not to draw any distinction between them.”

Caroline Carberry KC, for Batool, had argued that her client played a lesser part in the abuse leading to Sara’s death and was “subordinate” to her husband.

From the start of their relationship, Batool was an “isolated and vulnerable” woman who had been cast out by her family, the court heard.

Ms Carberry said Sharif was a “controlling, manipulative and violent man”, the “instigator” and “long-term inflicter” of the violence on Sara.

The “balance of power” lay with him, and Batool was “expected to put up with” his behaviour, she said.

Addressing Mr Justice Cavanagh, she said: “The court can find further confirmation from the police and social service records that Urfan Sharif had a history of controlling behaviour and violence towards women and children stretching back many years.

“This is a feature of him about which my Lord can be sure.”

On the jury verdict, at some point Batool, who had five other children and step-children, ceased to protect Sara and joined her husband by “assisting or encouraging” him, Ms Carberry said.

She said: “The court could properly conclude that her will must have been broken by her circumstances.

“Her determination, which she clearly held for a significant period of time, to fight against what was happening to Sara and to do the right thing, morphed into something else.

“Beinash Batool expresses genuine remorse for Sara’s unintended death, deep personal regret for remaining in her relationship with Urfan Sharif, and true sorrow that she did not remove the children from harm.”

Sentencing them, Mr Justice Cavanagh said they had both singled out Sara for abuse amounting to “torture”, Sharif because she was a girl and Batool because she was not one of her own children.

While most of the violence was inflicted by her father, Batool also took an “active role” and was willing to “sacrifice” her, the judge said.

Mr Justice Cavanagh told her: “It was you who bit her, on the arm and on the inner thigh, not long before she died.

“These were not affectionate nibbles, these were bites.

“Also, I can be sure that you took part in the tying up and hooding of Sara. This was not the work of one individual, and Sara was tied up even when Urfan Sharif was not in the house.

“Still further, I have no doubt that you were present at and involved in the burning of Sara with an iron, which led to the terrible burns on her buttocks.

“This was a two-person job, one to hold Sara and one to press the iron on to her body.”

He jailed the couple for life, handing Sharif a minimum term of 40 years and telling Batool she would serve at least 33 years for her lesser role.

Sara’s uncle Faisal Malik, 29, went to live with the family in Woking, Surrey, long after the violence began.

The judge jailed him for 16 years for causing or allowing Sara’s death.

In mitigation, Malik’s barrister Michael Ivers KC, said the part-time McDonald’s worker had come to the UK to attend university and “better himself”.

Malik did not have “full knowledge” of the violence against his niece and there was “no evidence” he was present when it was being inflicted, the defence barrister claimed.

Mr Ivers said: “We know he arrived in the UK in December 2022. He will have had absolutely no idea of the dysfunctional family and the dysfunctional household he was arriving into.”

He added that it was “abundantly clear” that “spirited” Sara was “very resilient indeed”.

However, Mr Justice Cavanagh rejected as “preposterous” any suggestion Malik was unaware of what was going on, as he spent the “bulk” of his time at the crowded home.

The judge told him: “I have no doubt whatsoever that you, Faisal Malik, were aware of the campaign of torture that was being perpetrated against Sara, primarily by your brother.”

It was “inconceivable” that Malik was not present when Sara was being abused, that he did not see or hear anything or was unaware she was being tied up, the judge said.

He added: “The idea that was, at one stage, put forward on your behalf, that you were too busy on your phone or listening on your earbuds to notice anything happening to Sara is, frankly, preposterous.”