Sara Sharif Trial Verdicts – Father and Stepmother Guilty of Murder of Ten-year-old Daughter

Published on: 11 Dec, 2024
Updated on: 11 Dec, 2024

By Martin Giles

The reporting of this case is sequential with reports added each day of the trial.

Warning: This article contains details that some people might find distressing

See also: Court Hears Harrowing Evidence of Sara Sharif’s Injuries

Wednesday, December 11

The father and stepmother of ten-year-old Sara Sharif have been found guilty of murder. The jury returned their verdict on Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool this afternoon.

Sara’s uncle, and Sharif’s brother Faisal Malik, who lived with Sharif family in Horsell near Woking, was found not guilty of murder but guilty of causing or allowing the death of a child.

A post-mortem examination found the 10-year-old had sustained “multiple and extensive injuries” before her death. The jury heard evidence that Sara had been bound, hooded, beaten with a cricket bat and even bitten.

Thanking the jury, the judge at the Old Bailey was reported by the BBC as saying: “This case above any other has been stressful and traumatic.

“In a building where there are many murder trials and emotional cases, this one had been particularly highly charged.”

Sentencing will take place next Tuesday (December 17).

Paying tribute to her daughter, Sara’s mother, Olga Sharif, said: “My dear Sara, I ask God to please take care of my little girl, she was taken too soon.

“Sara had beautiful brown eyes and an angelic voice. Sara’s smile could brighten up the darkest room.

“Everyone who knew Sara will know her unique character, her beautiful smile and loud laugh.

“She will always be in our hearts, her laughter will bring warmth to our lives. We miss Sara very much. Love you Princess.”

Please see interview with Detective Chief Superintendent Mark Chapman of Surrey Police, who led the murder investigation…

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children calls for government action

Commenting on the case Maria Neophytou, acting Chief Executive of the NSPCC, said: “Sara Sharif was repeatedly assaulted and tortured before being finally murdered by her father and stepmother in what was an absolutely shocking case of brutal and prolonged abuse. Her uncle was aware of the horrors she was being subjected to but did nothing to save her. Our thoughts go out to all those who loved and cared for Sara in a life that was marked by so much pain and suffering.

“What this little girl endured over several years raises crucial questions about what more could have been done to protect her and important issues regarding child safeguarding. It is vital that the Child Safeguarding Practice Review identifies any ways in which Sara could have been better protected, in an effort to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

“This terrible case has also highlighted the ambiguity of the current legal position in England around the physical punishment of children. It is disturbing that Urfan Sharif believed – and told police – that he ‘did legally punish’ Sara for being naughty. Politicians at Westminster must move swiftly to abolish the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ and give children the same protection from assault as adults.

“Families, professionals, and individuals can also all work to protect children by reporting any concerns, no matter how small, to the local authorities, the police, or the NSPCC Helpline. If a child is in immediate danger, always call emergency services on 999.”

‘A complex case with much liaison with foreign authorities’

Libby Clark from the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Sara was a happy, outgoing and lively child described as always laughing, who was cruelly abused and murdered by those closest to her.

“None of us can imagine how appalling and brutal Sara’s treatment was in the last few weeks of her short life. The injuries inflicted on her were absolutely horrendous.

“After Sara died, instead of calling 999, the three defendants immediately made plans to flee the country, thinking only of themselves and not telling police Sara was dead until they had safely landed in Pakistan.

“We were able to build a strong case, showing where each defendant was in the weeks running up to Sara’s death using mobile phone evidence, CCTV sightings and work records.

“In a small house with such a big family, it would have been immediately obvious to all the adults what was happening to Sara. Yet none of them took any action to stop it or report it. They all played their part in the violence that led to her tragic death.

“This was a complex case with much liaison with foreign authorities and our CPS international unit played a significant role in helping us to prosecute this case successfully.”

“We have today secured justice for Sara, a bubbly young girl, who was killed by the adults who should have protected her”.

Tuesday, December 10

Surrey Police have confirmed that the jury did not sit today and, consequently, verdicts are still awaited. The jury is expected to resume its deliberations tomorrow.

Thursday, December 5

The jury did not sit today due to a juror being unwell. For the same reason the jury will also not be sitting tomorrow.

Jury deliberations are expected to resume on Monday, December 9 at 10am.

Wednesday, December 4

The jury of 12 of nine women and three men was told by the trial judge Justice Cavanagh on Tuesday that they were under no time pressure, adding that everyone in the trial deserved their “complete attention and thoughtful consideration” He also asked that they try and reach unanimous verdicts.

Today, the jury remained out considering the verdicts on the three defendants who all pleaded not guilty to the charges of murder and and causing or allowing the death of a child.

Tuesday, December 3

The judge finished his summing up today and the jury retired to consider their verdicts.

Justice John Cavanagh returned to Urfan Sharif’s cross-examination by prosecuting counsel Emlyn Jones.

The barrister had asked whether Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik knew about or took part in the violence against Sara. Sharif accepted that Batool witnessed violence to Sara and at times tried to stop him.

But he denied Malik ever saw Sara being beaten, stated that if he had, Malik would have told their father and it would have been stopped.

Sharif accepted he had punished Sara if she was naughty and agreed with Mr Emlyn Jones that “at times” violence to Sara became normalised in the house.

Justice Cavanagh said that Sharif was asked if Batool would recall him to the house to beat Sara. In his first account Sharif denied this, explaining Batool called him home to look after Sara when she had been sick. He also said Batool told him when Sara had been naughty.

After Sharif changed his testimony, the prosecuting barrister put the same question to Sharif, and he had accepted he was called home to discipline Sara when Batool told him she was being naughty; however, she wasn’t always disciplined by beating. Sharif denied being aware of whether Batool disciplined the children herself, saying she would only tell them off.

The judge told the jury that Sharif was clear in his final testimony that he would only accept responsibility for what he had done.

The timeline of movements

Moving on to the timeline of Sharif, Batool and Malik’s movements from Friday, August 4, to Wednesday, August 11, Justice Cavanagh recounted the evidence around Faisal Malik’s movements.

It was not disputed that Malik lived within the household, went to Portsmouth University and worked at McDonald’s in Woking. The prosecution case is that Malik spent a considerable amount of time in a small crowded house and the nature of Sara’s treatment is such that the jury can be sure Malik either inflicted assaults himself, or knew, encouraged or assisted in causing really serious harm.

The case for manslaughter and causing or allowing a child’s death

Justice Cavanagh then laid out the prosecution’s case for manslaughter and causing or allowing the death of a child.

He reminded the jury that Malik’s defence is that he spent much time outside the house as it was crowded and the children were difficult to be around. For cultural reasons, Mr Ivers said, Malik did not spend time with Sara. The jury was also reminded Malik did not give evidence.

Sharif was questioned about Malik’s arrival to the UK, admitting Malik arrived into a difficult situation because of the strained marriage relationship. Sharif did not ask Malik not to come as the brothers did not have a close relationship and he was doing it out of family duty.

Defence counsel Mr Ivers suggested Batool was resentful when Malik came to live with them, but Sharif disagreed, saying it was a joint decision to invite Malik.

Malik had offered to find alternative accommodation but Sharif told him not to. Sharif agreed with Mr Ivers’ suggestion that the brothers had agreed to make it look like Malik did not live with them due to rules around housing and Sharif denied that Malik had any responsibility for the children’s upbringing.

Prosecuting, Mr Emlyn Jones put it to Sharif that had Plan A had not worked, he was going for Plan B which involved cutting his losses and admit culpability to save the others.

The barrister put it to Sharif that he had previously said he does not know what goes on inside the house when he is not there, but yet he also said that Malik was never at home. Sharif had then clarified that when he did come home, he knew Malik was not there.

Movements of the three defendants on three crucial days

Justice Cavanagh returned to the timeline, recounting the cell site or telecoms data and accompanying evidence showing the movements of the three defendants from Thursday, August 3, to Sunday, August 6.

The judge reminded the jury of Sharif’s testimony about his actions in the days leading up to Sara’s death, focusing on the brain injury that occurred in the days prior.

When Sharif first changed his testimony, he accepted assaulting Sara with a bat and pole. However, later in the day he told Mrs Carberry in cross examination that he did not beat Sara on Sunday, August 6. The family had a day out at the car boot sale and watched a film.

Sharif said he did not beat Sara on Monday but beat her on Tuesday before she died.

Then returning to the timeline, Justice Cavanagh recounted the possible movements on Monday, August 7.

He notes that this may relate to the neighbour Miss Mellon’s evidence where she recalls hearing a girl scream. On Tuesday, August 8, another neighbour, Paul Kent, recounted seeing all the lights on in the Sharif household early in the morning.

The defendant’s possible movements are discussed throughout the day. Sharif and Batool attended their GP’s surgery with one of their children in the morning, then cell site data suggests Sharif went to work from 6.25pm. At 7.15pm there was a series of calls from Batool to Sharif, followed by incoming calls from Batool’s sisters to Batool.

Sharif accepted he was called home by Batool, who said Sara was sick, and stopped at the Co-op en route. There is further phone evidence that shows 30 voice calls from Batool trying to reach her family.

Sibling’s phone message saying his sister had passed away

Then there was a message at 8.38pm from one of the children to his friend, saying his sister passed away, and a 42-minute phone call from Batool’s sister to Sharif.

Further long phone calls took place between Batool and Southall Travel, as well as Sharif and another person to book flights.

Justice Cavanagh reminds the jury of the final account Sharif gave of his actions on the night on August 8.

He said he was called home by Batool, who said Sara was sick. He went upstairs and hit Sara with a pole because he thought she was pretending. Batool did not think Sara was pretending to be unwell. Sharif told the jury that Sara passed away with one or two minutes after entering the room and he did not let Batool call an ambulance.

Sharif said he did not know Malik was at home until Batool went downstairs to get him. Sharif agreed that when he came home Sara was very ill but no one had called a doctor.

Flight to Pakistan

On making the decision to go to Pakistan, Sharif said that Malik was not involved.

Mr Ivers asked Sharif about performing ghusl on Sara which is an Islamic ritual. He initially said he did perform ghusl but later said he washed her face and hair because a grey liquid was coming from her nose.

Justice Cavanagh reminds the jury of the Southall Travel call they heard from Batool trying to book flights, which was ultimately unsuccessful. He references a second call by Sharif to a different person which did result in flights being booked. The Prosecution’s case is that the speed in which they managed to arrange this is a sign that all three defendants were working together.

Sharif told the jury he did not call the police at the time of Sara’s death because he was worried about his other children, which is why they went to Pakistan.

Sharif denied tidying the house prior to leaving for his flight. He denied cleaning Sara outside or wrapping her in towels, and he could not explain why Sara was found in fresh clothes.

The note left underneath the pillow where Sara’s head was resting was read to the jury.

Justice Cavanagh described the family’s movements as they went to Pakistan and Sharif’s call to police from Islamabad. He then highlighted Batool and Sharif’s video aired on Sky TV that said they would co-operate with UK authorities.

Return to UK

In Sharif’s cross examination, he explained that Batool wanted the children to return to the UK but he felt they should stay in Pakistan because they were getting better treatment. He denied going to Pakistan to protect himself.

Mr Ivers asked Sharif about Malik’s decision to return to the UK and Sharif agreed that Malik told him and Batool he wanted to go, asking if they were going to join him. Sharif had denied leaving their phones in Pakistan deliberately.

Justice Cavanagh then reminded the jury of the defendants’ arrest in the UK and subsequent no comment interviews.

This concluded the summing up and the jury was sent to consider their verdict.

Court resumes tomorrow (December 4), when the jury will resume its deliberations.

Monday, December 2

Justice John Cavanagh resumed his summing up, taking the jury through a selection of the thousands of WhatsApp messages between Beinash Batool, Sara’s stepmother, and her sisters from 2019 to February 2023.

He reminded the jury that there was no evidence within these messages that Batool had ever sought help externally and had never asked her sisters to do so either.

Justice Cavanagh described messages between Batool and her sister in which she spoke about Sara’s father, Urfan Sharif, being angry and violent towards their children and that he was always shouting at them and hitting them.

She also told her sisters he drank frequently and that he wouldn’t let them see their children. Batool also spoke about Sharif beating Sara and said that he would live to regret what he had done. She sent her sisters photos of Sara’s bruises and on one occasion, said that Sharif had “literally beaten her black and blue”.

In the messages, Batool spoke about Sara’s bad behaviour, describing occasions where she had cut up some of Sharif’s clothes and how she would never learn not to behave in this way.

Batool did ask for advice about obtaining a court order but didn’t appear to be supported in this by her family members. On one occasion, when speaking about Sharif beating Sara, her sister told Batool to “ignore him and put the Koran on”.

In June 2022, Batool told her sisters that Sara was going to be home schooled because she could no longer cover up her bruises.

The messages also spoke about Sara suffering from anxiety and vomiting frequently.

Later that year, Sharif went to Pakistan, intending the move to be permanent, leaving Batool at home with the children. He returned the following month, in December 2022, and not long after that his brother, Faisal Malik, arrived in the UK and moved in with them.

Batool told her sisters she never had any privacy and that she had asked him to teach the children the Koran but that he was always on his phone.

Justice Cavanagh then turned to the evidence given by the neighbours, starting with those at the family’s former address in Eden Grove Road, West Byfleet.

They said that Batool had been at home with the children a lot, and described sounds of screaming, crying and smacking coming from their address. They also spoke about sounds of a door being rattled.

One neighbour said she dreaded the end of the school day and the summer holidays when the children were at home more. Neighbours also described hearing a woman’s voice screaming profanities at the children.

Evidence from the neighbours suggested that Sara was often out in the garden doing chores, including putting out the washing and taking dirty nappies to the bin. They spoke about her being a “lovely little girl” and playing games.

Neighbours also spoke about noticing Sara wearing a hijab in September 2021 and when they asked Batool and Sharif about it, they said it was because she wanted to explore her Muslim faith.

Evidence from Sara’s school

Justice Cavanagh reminded the jury that Batool had been heard to use abusive language towards her younger children on a number of occasions when she was picking them up from school.

He also spoke about some of the agreed facts, including bruises which were spotted by the school in June 2022 and March 2023 before Sara was removed by Sharif to be home-schooled in April 2023.

These bruises were reported by the school on the Child Protection Online Monitoring System.

Justice Cavanagh reminded the jury of the evidence given by Sara’s class teacher, who described her as a happy and bubbly girl who was in her “happy place” when she was singing or performing, but who was also not afraid to share her opinion.

Evidence provided by other staff at the school said that when Sara was asked about her bruises, she would “shrink into herself” and that her accounts of how they had occurred were inconsistent with the accounts provided by Batool when she was questioned about them.

In April 2023 Sara left to be home schooled, with Sharif’s reason being that she was being bullied because of her hijab and was struggling to make friends.

Further messages between Batool and her sisters on 25 May 2023 talked about Sara being so badly beaten by Sharif that her oxygen levels dropped, and her breathing became more rapid, yet still no medical assistance was sought.

Further evidence from neighbours

Justice Cavanagh reminded the jury of the evidence given by neighbours of the family at Hammond Road who felt that the children were always clean and smart and that the house was always clean and tidy.

One of the neighbours recalled expressing concern to Batool about Sara being taken out of school and not having contact with other children, to which Batool said she would socialise with other children at her swimming lessons and at the mosque. No other evidence was given of Sara attending swimming lessons.

The neighbours also commented on Sara wearing a hijab and how this was “slightly strange” as none of the rest of the family did.

Evidence from one of the neighbours said they didn’t recall seeing the family in the five days before police arrived at the house and found Sara’s body. Another recalled seeing all the lights on in the house on August 7, the day before Sara died.

Timeline and movements

Justice Cavanagh then turned to the timeline which was put together to show the movements of Sharif, Batool and Malik between July 19 and August 9. This was put together using CCTV, mobile phone data and ANPR footage to show when they would have been at home.

Justice Cavanagh also reminded the jury about Sharif’s evidence and how his “Plan A” had been to blame Sara’s death on his wife, saying he had begged her to call an ambulance, but she had refused. He also said she had pressurised him into fleeing to Pakistan and that she had told him what to write
in the confession note.

Father’s admission

He reminded the jury that on the sixth day of evidence, Sharif admitted Sara’s death had been his fault and that he had intended to cause really serious harm to Sara and was asked if he would like the charge put to him again, to which he agreed.

However, after being given legal advice, he said he had not intended to kill Sara or cause her really serious harm.

Justice Cavanagh said Sharif had taken responsibility for everything except the burns, bites and the hoods.

Sharif was asked if his “Plan B” was to cover for Malik and Batool, but he disagreed, saying he was responsible. He said he regretted leaving his daughter and had always intended to come back to the UK.

Justice Cavanagh said Sharif had admitted beating Sara with a cricket bat and a metal pole and hitting her on her head with his mobile phone.

However, he said Sharif wouldn’t accept that violence had become normalised in the household and couldn’t explain why “no one batted an eyelid” when Sara was seen at a family BBQ with a black eye, which Sharif blamed on one of the other children.

Justice Cavanagh said it was the prosecution case that Sara had been tied up for long periods and that she was beaten when she was tied up, and that none of the three defendants did anything to stop it, which made them complicit in it.

The prosecution also suggested that Sara soiled herself because no one would untie her to let her use the toilet.

Justice Cavanagh said that Sharif accepted that he had tied Sara up but denied ever using a hood. He also denied causing the burns on her bottom or the bite marks, and that he had provided his dental impressions which proved this.

Turning to Batool, Justice Cavanagh said that it was the prosecution’s case that she had made more than a minimal contribution to Sara’s death, and that she had certainly failed to take any steps to protect Sara.

However, he said that evidence provided in her defence said that she had tried to get medical attention, which Sharif had refused.

The trial continues at 10am tomorrow (December 3), when Justice Cavanagh will finish his summing up and the jury will be sent out for deliberation.

Wednesday, November 27

In court today Justice John Cavanagh continued his summing up and reviewed each of Sara’s injuries, both external and internal, using a body map.

He noted that there were more than 71 external injuries to Sara, including extensive bruising, multiple fractures, and a burn on her right buttock.

Internal injuries of note included internal bruising to the lungs and a significant brain injury thought to have been caused by a direct impact to the head.

Human bite marks were also found on Sara’s body which were not self-inflicted. He pointed out that dental impressions were provided by Urfan Sharif and Faisal Malik, and that Beinash Batool was the only one who would not provide her dental impressions.

Justice Cavanagh then reviewed the forensic evidence, including images of items seized from the family address in Hammond Road.

He reminded the jury of the agreed facts of Sharif and Batool’s background, such as their birthdays, where they were born, and previous relationships.

He also briefly highlighted some of the text messages between Batool and her sisters, such as Batool stating that she was not allowed to send photos of the children, that Sharif was threatening divorce, and that Batool was asking her sisters’ advice on how to reconcile her relationship with her father.

The judge raised the lack of support from Batool’s sisters when asked for their help, which had been mentioned by her defence counsel, Caroline Carberry.

The jury was reminded that Sharif’s initial response to the WhatsApp messages was that none of the allegations in there about him beating Sara were true, before changing his mind about this under cross-examination.

It was up to the jury, the judge said, to evaluate the evidence and its importance.

The court is not sitting on tomorrow (Thursday), or Friday and will reconvene on Monday, December 2, when Justice John Cavanagh will continue his summing up of the case.

Tuesday, November 26

Faisal Malik’s counsel, Michael Ivers KC, continued his closing statement by stating that he had advised Malik to not give evidence, and this would be his standard advice in any “weak case”.

He highlighted the thousands of messages between Beinash Batool and her sisters, in which he said there was no mention of Malik, Sara’s uncle, participating in any assaults.

Referring to claims of Malik being in the house during assaults on Sara as “wishful thinking”, he stated that there was no direct evidence against his client.

The defence counsel also pointed out that the jury were witnesses to Urfan Sharif accepting that he had beaten Sara on August 6 and then denying it. He argued that this is because it has been shown that the beating on August 6 led to Sara’s death.

And he disputed the prosecution’s claim that there was nearly the same evidence against Malik and argued that Sara’s uncle wasn’t even present to assist or encourage anybody or do it himself.

He returned to the evidence of messages between Batool and her sister where Batool said Malik was always on the phone and reiterated that Sharif and Malik did not have a close relationship.

Mr Ivers then turned to the causation of Sara’s death, suggesting that it was not exact science but the simple explanation is that Sara suffered a brain injury. He made the point that a second neuropathologist, Dr Allison, instructed by Batool’s counsel, had assessed the time window for this injury was 48 hours before death.

Sharif initially accepted beating Sara on August 6, 48 hours before Sara’s death and Mr Ivers asked the jury why Sharif is now denying that.

The barrister also asked the question why Batool’s counsel sought to instruct a second neuropathologist, suggesting that Batool knew when the fatal injury occurred.

Referencing Malik’s high university attendance rate, Mr Ivers said that it is clear that Malik would rather have been waiting for a lecture than be at home. He describes the limitations of  “cell site” data (indicating an individual’s location), concluding that if these are considered alongside other evidence, such as bank statements and phone data, this shows Malik was out of the house for significant amounts of time.

CCTV footage of Malik outside of the home address with earphones in was played for the jury and it was suggested he was not very present whilst at home.

The jury was told how the maltreatment of Sara was going on before Malik arrived and there was no reason to believe the injuries found on Sara’s body were inflicted in front of Malik who was barely mentioned in testimony given by the neighbours.

In regard to the charge of “causing or allowing death of a child”, Mr Ivers pointed to the stipulation that “the defendant must have been part of same household and had frequent contact with her”.

He conceded that Malik was part of the same household but not that he had frequent contact with Sara.

Returning to Sharif’s admission about the beating on August 6, Malik’s defence counsel said it was “not a slip of the tongue” and was the closest “we got to the truth”.  Concluding his summary, Mr Ivers said “this has got nothing to do with Malik, he is here facing a murder count on absolutely nothing”.

The judge commences his summing up

Mr Justice John Cavanagh then began his summing up by explaining that he would remind the jury of key evidence and his job was to guide them in the law.

He said that the job of the jury is to “consider all the evidence and relevant facts to come to a conclusion”. He discussed the credibility of witnesses, which is for the jury to decide.

Mr Justice Cavanagh gave the jury an overview of the medical evidence, referencing the medical experts who had provided reports and the questions this could allow the jury to consider including how the injuries were caused, the nature and age of injuries, whether they were noticeable to other people and any signs they were cared for.

The jury heard how the medical evidence is relevant to the cause of death. They were being asked to consider whether Sara died because of complications from a range of injuries, as is the prosecution’s case, or her death was due to the brain injury Sara suffered in the last few days, as all three defence counsels suggest.

The prosecution case, the judge said, is that Sara’s death was a result of multiple injuries and neglect. Dr Cary had explained the identified ischemia (a condition where a part of the body doesn’t receive enough blood flow, which can lead to tissue damage) could have been a result of brain injury or a different event.

The expert witness had also said the brain injury was less likely to be the cause of death but may have contributed to death with other injuries.

The judge continued by explaining the argument of Mr Mian, Urfan Sharif’s counsel, was that his client may be mistaken in his testimony and a jury cannot be sure that the assaults Sharif admitted to carrying out on Sara made more than a minimal contribution to her death.

Mr Mian had also submitted that the jury could not be sure there was not another assault that contributed to her death or that Sharif was involved. His case is also that the jury cannot be sure that the beatings and maltreatment made more than a minimal contribution to Sara’s death, meaning he would not be guilty of murder.

Mrs Carberry and Mr Ivers, defence counsel for Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik, had suggested that a brain injury was the sole cause of Sara’s death and this was inflicted by Urfan Sharif, without the involvement of their clients.

Medical Evidence

Mr Justice Cavanagh then began to revisit the specifics of the medical evidence, reminding the jury of the injuries identified by medical experts and the age of these injuries.

In relation to Sara’s head injury, Dr Cary initially said this was caused at least 48 hours before Sara’s death and was likely to be three to five days before Sara’s death. Dr Cary then agreed in cross examination that you couldn’t go further than saying the traumatic brain injury occurred more than 48 hours before Sara’s death.

The judge discussed the post mortem conducted by Dr Cary and Dr Marnerides, which concluded there was no evidence natural diseases caused Sara’s death. Professor Al Sarraj described a traumatic brain injury that occurred more than 48 hours prior to Sara’s death and the ischemia that followed.

The cross examination of Dr Cary by Malik’s defence counsel, Mr Ivers, was then referred to. Dr Cary had been shown the video of Sara said to have been taken on August 6 and asked if it was likely a further injury was caused after video was taken. Dr Cary said it was likely, if the timing of the video was correct.

Dr Cary had accepted that many of the injuries found on Sara didn’t cause her death and agreed with Mr Ivers that she was “alive with them, rather than dying from them”.

Prosecution counsel Mr Lloyd had followed Mr Ivers by asking Dr Cary if the ischemia could be related to the brain injury or to a different event. Dr Cary had confirmed either could be possible.

The trial continues  tomorrow (November 27), when Justice John Cavanagh will continue his summing up of the case.

Monday, November 25

The court did not sit today due to a juror being unwell.

The court will reconvene at 10am tomorrow (November 26), when Faisal’s Malik counsel will resume his closing statement.

Friday, November 22

Naeem Mian KC, barrister for Urfan Sharif, continued his closing statement and Caroline Carberry KC, barrister for Beinash Batool gave hers.

Mr Mian began by returning to the fact that Urfan Sharif stated he had hit Sara twice to the abdomen with the pole on the Tuesday she died, and disputed the fact that this would have been a “significant contributing factor” to Sara’s death.

Mr Mian also said that, in the video of Sara dancing from August 6, Sara was “living with the injuries not dying from the injuries” she was known to have then and he reminded the jury of the turmoil, guilt, and remorse Sharif would have felt, and the number of days he spent in the witness box.

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.

The barrister continued by saying to the jury: “Whatever you may think of him, and you may think he’s a scumbag, at least he came over there [to the witness box] and opened himself up.”
He admitted that the confession had come as a “total surprise” to him (as his defence counsel), and that it had clearly been a surprise to the jury too.

Mr Mian said that Sharif would never forgive himself: “He will be in those circles of hell for eternity” and added: “He will not get forgiveness from us. Nobody can grant him that.”

He asked the jury whether they thought the emotion he had displayed was “some kind of artificial creation”.

And then concluded: “He’s undoubtedly guilty of something, undoubtedly. But the question for you, members of the jury, is of what.”

Closing Statement from stepmother’s defence

Ms Carberry, Batool’s barrister begun her closing speech by saying that Sharif had tried to silence Sara’s “spirit” and “boldness” with his actions.

She said that Sharif had been a “very comfortable liar” in the witness box over many days and suggested the jury may even have been taken in by his performance. She reminded them that he had then “desperately, implausibly backtracked” after his confession.

The barrister said that when Sharif had described Batool as a “psycho”, it had all been an act, and said that the dictionary definition of a psychopath was a “person having an egocentric personality, thinking only of oneself”, with an absence of empathy and often criminal tendencies.

She suggested to the jury that Sharif had actually been describing himself, and that he was the only psychopath in this court.

Describing Sharif as a “serial abuser of vulnerable women”, Ms Carberry said police and social services records had showed he had also abused children in his care over many years.

Ms Carberry told the jury that they had been “placed behind the doors of a family home” where “fear and violence reigned and where Urfan Sharif reigned”.

She accepted that they hadn’t heard from Batool, but pointed out that Faisal Malik hadn’t given evidence either and was also in the house on the day of Sara’s death. She told the jury not to jump to the conclusion that Batool’s silence proved the case against her.

Ms Carberry said that the jury had heard Batool’s voice and seen her life unfold through the texts to her sisters and were aware of her background through the agreed facts.

Ms Carberry said that Batool was vulnerable and isolated from her family, with a history of depression and self-harm, when she met Sharif, who was 13 years her senior. She said that Sharif was already a serial abuser with a controlling personality, and that Batool was an “easy victim”.

The defender said that Batool had also apparently told a nurse while she was pregnant that she didn’t want Sharif in her life and suggested that she stayed because she had no one else. She said that the messages to her sisters revealed “how bleak their marriage was”, and that “it is a myth that it is easy to leave an abusive relationship”.

Batool was isolated without support, the barrister said, an outcast from her family, and that her sisters discouraged her from leaving with a “stay and pray” attitude. She added that Batool would regret not having left for the rest of her life and said of Sharif: “For reasons we will never know, he loathed his daughter, and he loathed his wife.”

The court will reconvene on Monday, 25 November 25, when Michael Ivers KC, the defending counsel for Sara’s uncle Faisal Malik, will give his closing speech.

Thursday, November 21

The trial recommenced with further agreed facts being presented to the jury. They related to Beinash Batool’s conviction for theft and fraud by false representation in April 2015 when she stole gold jewellery from someone she was staying with and taking out a mobile phone contract in someone else’s name.

Batool received a conditional discharge when she appeared at magistrates’ court.

Prosecution’s closing speech

William Emlyn Jones KC, prosecuting, began his closing speech by saying that during the trial, the truth had “slowly and surely begun to emerge”, despite the fact that Sara’s stepmother and uncle, Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik, had said “absolutely nothing” and that her father, Urfan Sharif, had “lied through his teeth”.

The barrister told the jury that Sara had been brutally mistreated, abused and subjected to
violent assaults for many years and that during the last eight months of her life, this level of violence grew to the point that it cost her life.

He said that Sharif had admitted some of the violence that Sara suffered, but that it was “inconceivable” that one or two alone could have carried out the campaign of abuse that she went through without the complicity, participation, assistance and encouragement of the others.

Mr Jones pointed out that none of the defendants had ever reported the suffering, abuse and injuries that Sara endured and had, in fact, had taken positive steps to cover it up adding that the idea that Sara had suffered the abuse and injuries without the knowledge of all three adults living in the house was “hopelessly unrealistic”.

Turning to Sharif, the prosecutor reminded the jury of the “moment of high drama” on the sixth day of Sharif ’s evidence, when he admitted killing Sara and confirmed that what he had said in the call to police and written in the note left next to Sara’s body was his confession.

Mr Jones said Sharif had admitted beating Sara with a cricket bat and a pole severely and repeatedly and admitted causing her really serious harm and therefore admitting to murder.

But the barrister reminded the jury that when Sharif, after speaking to his counsel, didn’t change his plea to guilty the trial continued. Either Sharif regretted his admission and then tried to water it down, or it was an attempt to help Batool and Malik.

The prosecutor suggested Sharif had started off with Plan A, firstly trying to blame “psycho” Batool. When that didn’t work, he moved to Plan B by accepting full responsibility for Sara’s death in a bid to save Batool and Malik. Finally he moved to Plan C, in which he admitted to beating her repeatedly but that he didn’t cause her death.

Mr Emlyn Jones pointed out that Sharif had also denied beating Sara in the days prior to her death which is when it is suggested she suffered the traumatic brain injury and suggested that this was an attempt to suggest that either Batool or Malik had delivered the “final blow”.

Turning to Batool and Malik, the barrister reminded the jury of the unchallenged evidence provided by Dr Cary in which he said that Sara’s death was the result of complications arising from multiple injuries and neglect and was not the result of one single injury but the accumulative impact of all of the various injuries, and that Batool and Malik had played their part in these, either by assaulting her themselves or by encouraging or assisting Sharif.

Mr Jones suggested that Batool had conspired with Sharif to cover up what he was doing to Sara, for example, by taking her out of school so that no one saw her bruises, and that this amounted to encouraging or assisting Sharif.

He said there was nothing in the text messages Batool sent to her sisters which demonstrated any intention to stop Sharif’s violence towards Sara or asking them to report Sharif.

The barrister reminded the jury of the evidence given by the family’s neighbours in which they said they heard Batool screaming at Sara. They also described hearing loud smacking sounds and rattling, as if someone was locked in a room.

He spoke about the bite marks, pointing out that Batool had refused to provide her dental impressions, and while these injuries were not fatal, they were enough to show the wider role Batool played.

He said that Batool and Sharif’s shared approach to parenting was a “culture of violence towards Sara, which had become normalised, and that Sara suffered again and again at the hands of the adults who should have been caring for her but instead failed her “terribly”.

Mr Jones also suggested that Batool would call Sharif home to discipline Sara, giving him the “greenlight” and setting Sara up for a beating, and that this was enough to find Batool guilty of murder.

Turning to Malik, Mr Emlyn Jones said that he had moved to the UK in December 2022 to study at university. He also had a part time job at McDonalds. However, although the culture of violence towards Sara was established before Malik arrived in the UK, this carried on after his arrival.

Although there was no direct evidence Malik had assaulted Sara, Mr Emlyn Jones said he would have been in the house while she was being “beaten to death”.

Mr Jones reminded the jury of the other evidence, including the homemade hoods made using packing tape and carrier bags which were found discarded in the bin, and evidence that Sara had been restrained.

He said that restraining and hooding Sara was “part and parcel” of the overall violence which caused her death, and that Malik and Batool must have played a part by encouraging or assisting in that, or at the very least being complicit and doing nothing to stop it.

The barrister spoke about the burns Sara suffered and reminded them that Sharif had denied causing these, and that these were “someone else’s method of cruelty”.

He said that a video of Sara, allegedly taken on August 6, demonstrated her Sara’s “extraordinary resilience”, which he said, “ran out”.

Mr Jones spoke about the day that Sara died and no one calling for help, of the decision for the whole family to leave the UK and fly to Pakistan and taking their mobile phones and doorbell video with them, not telling the police where they were in the call made by Sharif and that they had only come home because their family members were being harassed by Pakistani authorities.

Counsel for the defence of Urfan Sharif commences his speech

In his closing speech, Urfan Sharif’s counsel, Mr Mian KC asked the jury to put their feelings of anger, frustration and hatred towards Sharif aside when dealing with the facts.

He asked them to consider who was responsible for the traumatic brain injury Sara suffered in the weekend before her death.

He pointed out that Sharif had taken full responsibility but wouldn’t admit to causing the burns or the bites, and that he didn’t know about the hooding.

Mr Mian said Sharif accepted he had beaten Sara with a cricket bat but said that these wounds were not fatal and were “healing wounds”.

He pointed out that Batool had not provided any explanation herself as to her involvement and had relied on her counsel’s cross examination of him about incidents many years before from Social Services records, which were not progressed, in the hope that if enough mud was thrown, some of it might stick.

The defence counsel pointed out that none of these incidents, which related to Sharif being arrested on three occasions, resulted in any charges.

Mr Mian went on to say that the cross-examination by Batool’s counsel was a bid to make the jury forget about the fact that Batool refused to give dental impressions, the fact that she was at home all of the time, and that she knew about the previous allegations made against him and stayed with him anyway.

The barrister said that Sharif had admitted to assaulting Sara, but that he didn’t ever hit her on the head or the face, and that he couldn’t have inflicted the brain injury.

Mr Mian suggested that Batool was a “controlling and coercive individual” and reminded the jury that Sharif had said he had jumped out of the window on one occasion to get away from her.

He said that Sharif had admitted carrying out terrible acts against his own daughter but that didn’t make him guilty of murder.

The court will reconvene tomorrow when Mr Mian will continue his closing speech. Closing speeches will also be given by Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik’s counsel.

Wednesday, November 20

The trial continued with further facts agreed by the prosecution and defence being read to the jury.

Included were references made during the cross-examination of Urfan Sharif by Beinash Batool’s counsel, including Social Services records of injuries made to Urfan Sharif’s older children (prior to him meeting Batool), and police records of Sharif’s previous arrests.

Records held by Surrey County Council’s Children’s Services department refer to Batool claiming to be the mother of twins from a previous relationship (prior to Sharif). However, later records indicate that Batool said the twins were not hers and that she is not the biological mother.

The jury was shown the cards written by the children which were found at the family address. An exercise book of Sara’s was found expressing her love for Batool, and referring her to as a “queen”, and describing Batool as “beautiful and young”.

A letter from Sara saying sorry to Batool and Sharif was also shown to the jury. According to the BBC in the letter Sara wrote that she was “sorry for being rude” and “answering back”.

“Please forgive me. I am so, so sorry,” it said.

The Judge then took the jury through with the directions to the law. The jury was told that they must accept and follow the directions to the law in assessing the evidence and finding the facts and that they could consider the alternative charge of manslaughter as an alternative to murder.

While the prosecution case is that each of the defendants murdered Sara, either by inflicting some or all of the injuries that caused or significantly contributed to her death, or by assisting in or encouraging the infliction of those injuries, they jury was told that if they were not sure that a particular defendant was guilty of murder, they could find the defendant in question guilty of manslaughter, or, if not, guilty of causing or allowing the death of a child.

The defendants, Urfan Sharif, Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik, have all denied murdering Sara.

The Judge reminded the jury that Urfan Sharif had taken full responsibility for Sara’s death, and admitted beating her in the weeks leading to her death but that these beatings did not cause or contribute to her death.

Sharif said he was not responsible for the burns or bite marks, or for the use of hoods made out of brown tape. He also told the jury that he did not believe that such hoods were ever used on  ara.

The Judge explained that the Prosecution did not contend that the defendants intended to kill Sara but that they had caused or significantly contributed to her death and that they intended to cause her really serious harm, which is sufficient for murder.

He said that Urfan Sharif also denied that he was guilty of the alternative offences of manslaughter and of causing or allowing the death of a child.

The Judge also explained that Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik had also denied murdering Sara, either by assaulting her or by encouraging or assisting Sharif in his assaults. Both have also denied that they are guilty of manslaughter or causing or allowing her death.

The Prosecution’s case is that both Batool and Malik are guilty of murder because they both took part with Sharif in at least some of the assaults and that the assaults they took part in caused or significantly contributed to Sara’s death.

It is also contended that Batool and Malik encouraged or assisted Sharif in his assaults as part of the campaign of discipline against Sara.

The jury was told, however, that if they did not accept that Batool or Malik had intended to cause really serious harm to Sara, they could find either one or both guilty of the alternative charge of manslaughter.

A further alternative for the jury would be to find either Batool or Malik or both guilty of causing or allowing Sara’s death, as they must have known what was going on in the household and did not take reasonable steps to prevent or stop the violence that led to Sara’s death.

The jury was told that Batool’s case is that there is no evidence that she participated in, encouraged or assisted in assaults on Sara. Her case relies on the evidence in the WhatsApp messages exchanged with her sisters to demonstrate that she was not involved in or encouraging or assisting Sharif in his assaults.

They were also told that Malik’s case would be that the abuse of Sara began long before his arrival in the UK. He was often out of the house, either at university, working in McDonald’s or going to the park and other places.

It would also be submitted that there is no evidence that he ever assaulted Sara to cause any injury or encouraged any injury whether fatal or otherwise.

The Judge said that the jury had heard distressing evidence during the trial and urged them not to let emotion or sympathy play any part in their decision.

He also told the jury that they should consider the evidence for and against each of the defendants separately and that if they found a defendant guilty of murder, they would not need to consider or return any verdict on manslaughter or on causing or allowing the death of a child.

If they found a defendant guilty of manslaughter, the jury would not need to consider the count of causing or allowing the death of a child.

If, however, they did not find a defendant guilty of murder or manslaughter, they should consider the alternative offence of causing or allowing the death of a child.

The court resumes at 10am tomorrow (November 21), for closing speeches.

Monday, November 18

Barristers representing Sara Sharif’s stepmother, Beinash Batool, and her uncle, Faisal Malik, confirmed that neither would be giving evidence. Batool and Malik are accused, along with Sara’s father Urfan Sharif, of murdering Sara and causing or allowing the death of a child. All three have pleaded not guilty.

The jury was then dismissed until Wednesday morning.

The trial is due to resume on Wednesday, November 20, at 11am, at which point more agreed facts will be presented to the jury and the judge will give legal direction.

Following this, closing speeches from each counsel are expected to commence.

Friday, November 15

The cross examination of Urfan Sharif by Mr Tom Ivers KC (counsel for Faisal Malik, the brother of Sharif) concluded.

In the final part of his cross examination he asked Sharif about the details of Sara’s injuries such as tying her up with rope, which he denied, and tying her up with tape, which he confirmed.

He stated that he was the only one who did this and that the other defendants did not help him. He also confirmed that he beat her with the pole.

Prosecutor Mr Emlyn Jones KC then asked Sharif if his wife, Beinash Batool, would call Sharif home and he would go home and beat Sara. Sharif replied that this wasn’t always the case, but it did happen sometimes.

He said that he couldn’t explain if he was doing this in a loss of temper or if this was controlled.

Mr Jones suggested that Sharif was called home by Batool and that Sara would already be bound ready for him to beat: “That’s the truth isn’t it, Mr Sharif, the awful truth?”. Sharif denied this.

Mr Emlyn Jones then questioned whether Sara had become incontinent or if there was another explanation for the nappies. He suggested that Sara had to wear nappies because she was being restrained and tied up so she couldn’t go to the bathroom.

He also suggested that Sara had a different status in the house to the rest of the children because they weren’t Batool’s. Mr Emlyn Jones said that Sharif’s attempts at discipline, in addition to making Sara’s life a misery, also “made her behaviour worse as she rebelled against you”.

The barrister highlighted all the minor things Sara had done that she was punished for, including cutting clothes, hiding keys, touching shoes, ripping Sharif’s documents and being rude, and asked Sharif whether just touching his shoes would trigger another round of violence.

Mr Jones suggested that Sharif and Batool conspired between them to “keep the violent treatment of Sara secret from the rest of the world.”

The court was reminded of the evidence given by one of their neighbours at Eden Grove Road, who said she had heard an odd sound, a rattling, like someone was trying to open a door but couldn’t.

The prosecutor then suggested that Sharif put locks on the door so he could lock Sara in and referred to a message between Beinash and Qandeela in 2021 where she stated: “He’s literally gonna break her arm or leg…I’m in the other room, he’s locked us out” but Sharif said that there were no locks.

Mr Jones challenged Sharif on calling Batool a “psycho” in court and asked him whether that was “purely confected for the benefit of the jury?”, to which Sharif replied: “I lied, sir.”

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.”

He also suggested that Sharif deliberately disposed of their mobile phones when they fled to Pakistan, denying police access to the evidence that would have been stored there, and that this was just another way in which Urfan had manipulated the case.

Sharif said that Sara had died within five minutes of him getting home, and that it took 1-2 minutes from him entering the bedroom until her death. Mr Emlyn Jones stated that this was still plenty of time in which to call an ambulance and emphasised that there were three adults in the house, all with their own mobile phones, and none of them did anything to help Sara.

At this point the Southall travel call was played again in part, focusing on specifics such as Batool’s calm tone, and the fact that Sharif can be heard speaking in the background asking her to book an earlier flight.

Mr Emlyn Jones said that you could “actually hear the cogs turning” when Batool was counting how many children were in the group planning to fly and described it as “brutal”.

The barrister suggested that Sharif didn’t return from Pakistan to tell the truth but had come back to try and lie his way out of it, adding: “You’ve switched one set of lies that weren’t working for another set of lies.”

He suggested that Sharif had changed tactics from blaming Batool to trying to save his co-defendants by taking all responsibility himself.

Before the end of Sharif’s cross-examination, his own barrister, Naeem Mian KC, asked about the five bite marks found on Sara’s arm. Sharif told the court he had provided his dental impressions, and the bites weren’t his.

Asked about the bite mark on Sara’s thigh, he said he wouldn’t bite his daughter there.

Mr Mian asked Sharif about the pole which was found in the outbuilding. Sharif said he used it to hit Sara in his bedroom. He said he couldn’t recall putting the pole in the outbuilding.

Sharif denied hitting Sara on the Saturday, the Sunday, or the Monday before her death. He confirmed that the last time he hit Sara was Tuesday, the day she died. He stated that he hit her twice with the pole.

Sharif added: “She was my daughter. I’ve been nasty, I’ve been mean with her. I couldn’t care for her. I didn’t do what a father should have done, and I take full responsibility for everything that happened to her.”

Mr Mian clarified that Sharif wasn’t taking responsibility for the bites, the burns and the hood, to which Sharif replied each time: “I didn’t do it, sir.”

The trail resumes on Monday at 12pm when the court will be told whether Beinash Batool will give evidence.

Thursday, November 14

Tom Ivers KC, representing Urfan Sharif’s bother, co-accused Faisal Malik, continued his cross examination of Urfan Sharif by asking him what credibility meant: Sharif accepted he has a credibility problem because he did not tell the truth and last week blamed someone else for Sara’s injuries.

Mr Ivers questioned Sharif on the allegations made by his previous Polish girlfriends, which he continued to deny, claiming the similar allegations were a “coincidence”.

The barrister asked Sharif about the burn and bite marks found on Sara. Sharif denied causing any of these injuries.

The court heard about Sharif and Malik’s relationship. There is a 14-year age gap between them, so they didn’t grow up together. When Sharif moved to Pakistan, he only saw Malik occasionally. The court heard that their father was kind and sensitive, and was not a disciplinarian, and neither was their mother.

Sharif explained that as the eldest sibling, he would make the decisions and Faisal would look up to him.

When Malik came to the UK to study at Portsmouth University, Mr Ivers said Sharif had offered to put him up, because of a sense of family duty. Initially this was in a small two-bedroom flat, then in their larger house in Hammond Road.

Mr Ivers asked if Batool was resentful about Malik staying with them, because of messages to her sister. Sharif stated that “she was like a mother to him” and that it was a joint decision for him to
stay.

Sharif told the court that Malik kept a distance from Batool, often staying out of the house. Mr Ivers said that Malik had a 91 per cent attendance record at Portsmouth University and took on lots of shifts at McDonalds.

The barrister then asked Sharif about the injuries he caused to Sara. Sharif stated that he hit Sara with a cricket bat once and never did this in front of Malik.

Mr Ivers recounted medical evidence that Sara died of ischemia (an inadequate blood supply to an organ or part of the body, especially the heart muscles) and asked Sharif if he had caused a seizure that led to this.

Sharif said he couldn’t have caused this because he didn’t hit her on her head, but Mr Ivers reminded him that you don’t need to be hit on the head to have a seizure.

Sharif was then asked about the day of Sara’s death and repeated his evidence that he did not know Malik was in the house and he was called upstairs by Batool. He stated Malik was not involved in the decision to go to Pakistan and is the sort of person to go along with decisions other people have made.

Malik’s counsel then asked Sharif questions about Ghusl, an Islamic practice of washing the body of a deceased person. Sharif explained that he didn’t do Ghusl as he only washed Sara’s face and hair and that it wasn’t true that he hadn’t seen the injuries on Sara until he was shown by police.

Mr Ivers asked why Sharif came back from Pakistan after he fled the country. Sharif denied it was because Pakistani authorities put pressure on his family, and insisted it was because of his daughter.

Mr Ivers told the jury that Malik decided to return to the UK and told Sharif and Batool of his plans, at which time the pair needed to make the decision whether to come with him. Sharif agreed that this was correct.

Sharif was asked again about Sara’s injuries and denied knowing about the burn and bite marks. Asked about the Southall Travel recording regarding the booking of the flights he accepted that the male voice heard in the background on the recording was his.

Mr Ivers asked Sharif what happened when the family fled to Pakistan, telling the jury Malik was not there when Sharif made the call to police.

On arriving at the family home in Pakistan, Malik was asked to go along with the story that Sara was injured but later Sharif and Malik told their father that she had died.

Sharif agreed with Mr Ivers that if Malik had known the abuse that was happening to Sara and told the family back in Pakistan, it “would have gone down like a lead balloon”.

Mr Emlyn-Jones KC, prosecution counsel, began his cross examination of Sharif by asking Sharif if it was challenging parenting so many children and asked him to confirm if parenting was about teaching boundaries, which Sharif agreed it was.

He said that Batool took on the lion share of parenting and described her as ‘a good mother’. Sharif said that Malik was not involved in parenting the children.

Mr Emlyn-Jones said that messages between Batool and her sister showed abuse going back years.

Sharif accepted he was violent but denied that it was for years.

The prosecuting barrister suggested to Sharif that he couldn’t maintain the type of discipline he wanted on his own, but Sharif denied this, claiming full responsibility.

Mr Emlyn-Jones pressed Sharif on the fact he did not seem to like the word murder. Sharif responded: “I did not want to kill her, I did not want to harm her.”

Sharif was asked how he could know Malik was never at home, when he has also claimed to have been out of the house a lot or asleep and Sharif clarified he made these remarks to describe what he saw when he was at home.

The barrister said that Sharif’s statement was “Plan B”, after “Plan A” did not work and Sharif agreed that he is a liar.

Mr Emlyn-Jones then went through the questions Sharif had been asked the previous morning to confirm if he still stood by them. He changed his testimony and said it wasn’t true when he said he had been beating Sara severely over a number of weeks.

Yesterday he accepted he had used the cricket bat on more than one occasion, but today said it was only once.

The barrister drew a comparison with Sharif’s family life in Pakistan where aunts and uncles would help bringing up the children, but Sharif denied that was the case in their household in England.

Sharif accepted he was a strict disciplinarian and Sara must have been frightened of him.

When asked if Batool complained about Sara being naughty, Sharif said she would sometimes call him and he would come home from work to deal with it.

Sharif accepted that Sara would be punished for vomiting but denied punching and kicking her for this.

Mr Emlyn-Jones went through phone records of numerous calls between Sharif and Batool and asked if Batool was reporting Sara’s bad behaviour to Sharif to set her up for a beating, which he denied.

Sharif was asked about the burn mark on Sara’s bottom and said he never saw it or knew how it happened. He accepted that at times, violence to Sara had become normalised, but said he never did it in front of Malik saying Batool would only tell her off in his absence.

The barrister asked Sharif whether he agreed with his statement yesterday that he hit Sara severely and repeatedly with the cricket bat with the intention to hurt her. Today he denied intending to inflict the injuries on her.

Sharif was about the hoods found at the address. Sharif denied that this were used on Sara.

Mr Emlyn-Jones asked Sharif about the packing tape. Yesterday he accepted that he beat her up while she was taped up, but today did not and Mr Emlyn-Jones asked who was responsible for tying Sara up?

The trial continues at 10am tomorrow, with Mr Emlyn-Jones KC continuing his cross examination.

Wednesday, November 13

Urfan Sharif, father of Sara Sharif, made a dramatic admission to the jury today as his cross examination by Mrs Caroline Carberry KC, defence counsel for Beinash Batool, Sharif’s wife and Sara’s stepmother, continued into the third day.

Sharif told the jury he had something to say and stated: “I want to admit it, it was all my fault. I want the court to consider my confession.”

Mrs Carberry then went through a note Sharif admitted to writing line by line. He was asked whether he killed Sara by beating her, to which he replied: “She died because of me,” and said he took “full responsibility.” Members of the jury appeared shocked by the admissions

Earlier in the trial prosecuting counsel had told the court a note in Sharif’s handwriting had read: “Whoever see this note it’s me Urfan Sharif who killed my daughter by beating. I am running away because I am scared but I promise I will hand over myself and take punishment.

“I swear to God that my intention was not to kill her but I lost it.”

Today, Sharif again admitted to inflicting injuries on Sara, including fractures using a cricket bat and metal pole but denied causing the burn or bite mark and using a belt around Sara’s neck. He said he did not know how the injury to Sara’s neck happened. He did, however, accept beating Sara badly on Sunday, 6 August, two days before Sara is believed to have died.

At this point, Batool, became extremely distressed and left the court room.

The barrister asked Sharif about the decision to take his family to Pakistan after Sara’s death. He confirms he made the decision and now wanted his children to stay in Pakistan because they were getting better care there.

There was a discussion around Batool speaking to Sharif’s dad about Sharif’s abusive behaviour towards Sara and Sharif accepted his father spoke to him but said he never told him to stop treating Sara badly.

Mrs Carberry also discussed the video made by Batool and Sharif in Pakistan which was sent to Sky News. In the video, Batool read out a list of names of Sharif’s family members who she said had been arrested in Pakistan, but Sharif denied this was connected to this case.

Sharif was asked if he fled the country to protect himself, which he denied and said he wanted to protect the whole family, accepting he would go to prison.

He denied tying Sara up and putting her in the outbuilding as a punishment and to keep her out of sight and hearing when he beat her.

Mrs Carberry talked through several exhibits showing items which were found in the shed. Sharif accepted using the cricket bat, the pole (which was an extendable leg of a highchair) and tape.

The belt found in the outbuilding was discussed with reference to DNA on it, and Sharif said that he shared his belt with Faisal Malik his co-accused brother and that Sara did the laundry.

Sharif said he didn’t know how Sara got her injury to the hyoid bone and the linear marks on her neck, but accepted he had put his hands around her neck more than once.

He was questioned again about Sunday, August 6. He changed his testimony from earlier in the morning and said he did not assault Sara, stating it was his “last proper interaction with my
daughter. I didn’t touch her that day.”

Sharif told the court that the last time he beat Sara was on the day she died, and said he beat her with a pole while she was on Batool’s lap. Sharif refused to let Batool call an ambulance and Sara died one or two minutes after he entered the room.

He told the court he checked her pulse and gave her CPR but she didn’t wake up. He didn’t know if Malik was home at this time.

Mrs Carberry asked Sharif to confirm that the confession left on Sara’s pillow and the call to police was genuine. Sharif confirms this was true, and said: “I’m cruel, my daughter died because of me.”

The trial continues tomorrow, Faisal Malik’s counsel, Mr Ivers, is expected to cross examine Sharif, along with the prosecution counsel.

Tuesday, November 12

The cross examination of Urfan Sharif, Sara’s father by Caroline Carberry KC representing his wife Beinash Batool continued today.

Mrs Carberry asked Sharif to clarify the age of one of his partners which she suggested appeared to have been 14 or 15 when they first started a relationship based on the timeline he had given. Sharif denied that was the case.

The jury heard a statement from a social worker, James Lewis, who described Sharif’s supervised interactions with his children with Olga Sharif (his former wife) at the Shaw Centre in Woking between 2014 and 2015. This included accounts from the children of Sharif waving a knife, encouraging one of his children to kick over Lego and one of the children saying that Sharif hit Olga. Sharif denied all of this and stated Olga was abusive towards the children.

In 2015, Olga told the social worker that Sharif assaulted her, which he also denied. Sharif was asked about a parenting course he was directed to attend by social services. It was put to him that he attended four out of ten sessions, which Sharif disputed.

The court heard how Sharif met Batool when he was 32 and she was 20. There was some dispute over when they met, Sharif believes it was October 2014 after Batool took his number for a taxi, whereas Mrs Carberry said that the pair met in March 2015 after Sharif asked for her number from a man who runs a shop in Woking.

Mrs Carberry told the jury that Batool was abused by members of her family, which Sharif accepted he knew about. However, he denied knowing that Batool went to police in 2012 and was treated as a victim of honour-based abuse.

Sharif disagreed with Mrs Carberry’s suggestion that Batool was an isolated, vulnerable woman and that Sharif liked her because she was vulnerable.

The jury heard how Batool became pregnant within months of being together. In January 2016, when Batool was 25 weeks pregnant and unwell, Sharif told Batool he wanted her to leave and demanded a paternity test, which he later refused to take. Sharif denied this.

Sharif told the court that Batool’s family wanted her to be with him because of her “crazy behaviour”.

He denied cutting up Batool’s clothes, saying Batool accused him and Sara of this, telling the jury “she is a psycho”.

The jury then watched a video that was played last week, in which Sharif tells Batool she is being abusive. Mrs Carberry suggested to Sharif that he tried to make this looks like an abusive episode, but that Batool cannot be seen hitting him or twisting his arm like he claimed.

The jury was told Batool did not have any children prior to her marriage to Sharif, to which Sharif says up until 2022, he had believed Batool did have children as he had taken her to visit them.

The court heard how, in June 2016, Sharif was ordered to undertake a domestic violence perpetrator programme in order to help him have unsupervised contact with his children. Sharif attended 10 out of 16 sessions and told the court he could not attend some sessions because Batool was abusive. Notes from the course showed concerns with Sharif’s ability to listen, explore past behaviour and show empathy.

In August 2017, Sharif went to hospital, claiming it was a result of Batool’s abuse. However, Mrs Carberry suggested this was actually because of a six week history of muscular pain.

In June 2017, Sara and her brother disclosed to Sharif that Olga was abusing them, which he reported to social services. From April 2019, Olga consented to the children living full time with Batool and Sharif.

The jury were then played the video from 26 June 2019 (played last week) that showed Sharif and Batool arguing in the kitchen. Mrs Carberry suggested Batool was being reasonable and calm, and concerned for her children; whereas Sharif viewed Batool as manipulative.

The jury was then shown messages between Batool and her sister Qandeela between February 2020 through to 2023, in which Batool depicts Sharif as childish, manipulative and abusive, and that he confiscated her bank card and suspended her bank account. Batool told her sister “he punched me and spat at me”, which Sharif denied. He also denied drinking a lot and told the court he only drinks twice a year.

In the text messages, Batool described Sharif’s abuse of Sara, sending pictures of her bruises, telling Qandeela Sara was made to do sit ups and stand with her arms up, and detailing concerns that Sharif would break Sara’s arm or legs.

Batool said that she wanted to report Sharif but was worried she would lose the children. Sharif denied the claims and said Batool didn’t report it because she was causing the injuries.

Sharif accepted the messages indicating that he had threatened to divorce Batool while she was pregnant. The court was told that Batool sought legal advice in February 2022, and had paid in cash to avoid Sharif finding out.

A screenshot of a message Sharif sent to Batool on February 10 was shown to the jury, where Sharif says “…neither her (Sara) nor you can be trusted. Both of you make life hell. I’m done with you and it will be Sara’s turn.”

Sharif claimed this related to sitting Sara down to talk to her about her behaviour.

Mrs Carberry told the court that Batool had given birth to another child in 2022 by herself and that Sharif had refused to visit, or let her family come. But Sharif said he was at the birth.

A video from July 26 2022 is shown to the jury which showed Sara with a mark on her cheek. Mrs Carberry told the jury they can see Sharif slapping Sara five times on her cheeks, but Sharif said he was not slapping Sara and that he was playing with her.

The cross-examination of Urfan Sharif continues.

Monday, November 11

The cross examination of Urfan Sharif, the father of Sara Sharif, by Mrs Caryoln Carberry, the barrister representing Sharif’s wife and Sara’s stepmother, Beinash Batool, commenced today

Mrs Carberry told the court that Sharif was a violent and controlling man, which Sharif denied and said he had given a false confession saying he didn’t see anything to suggest Sara was in pain or discomfort.

Sharif confirmed he saw marks on Sara which he was told were caused by the children fighting with each other. In terms of recent injuries, Sharif told the jury he saw a scratch to Sara’s face and blisters to her feet.

Sara always wore a hijab in the house, Sharif said, and he never saw marks to her neck. Mrs Carberry played a video from June 9, 2023, taken by Batool, which shows Sara in the garden playing with her siblings. Sara is not wearing a hijab and faint marks are visible on her neck.

Sharif agreed he could see the marks on Sara but denied being in the house. He agreed that Sara looks happy in the garden with Batool and her siblings.

Mrs Carberry showed the court a zoomed in image from the video, showing marks on Sara’s hands. Sharif told the jury these were a rash and he “did not pay attention”, as he was away a lot of the time.

The barrister then showed another clip from the video of Sara’s face, and asked him how he missed the faded bruises on Sara’s face, neck, hands and wrist area that would have been much more vivid prior to the video.

In another video the court was shown the family out in the garden on June 10, taken by Batool. This showed the whole family, including Sharif and Malik, in the garden having a barbeque. Sara is seen without her hijab and Sharif accepted that she sometimes didn’t wear her hijab, but mostly that she did.

In a third video from July 28 taken by Batool, some of the children were shown including Sara who has a black eye and a very short fringe. Phone data showed that Sharif was near the home address on that date, which he accepted.

A close-up image of Sara from the video was then shown, depicting a scratch on Sara’s nose which Sharif admitted to seeing along with the black eye. Sharif told the jury he did not mention the black eye because he had forgotten about the injury.

Sharif said Batool had cut Sara’s hair and that he didn’t know “what problems or issues she had with my daughter”.

Mrs Carberry also showed a video of Sharif with two of the other children four weeks before Sara died, which showed him shaking one of them. Mrs Carberry described Sharif as a “lying, manipulative, controlling man” which he denied.

Mrs Carberry described incidents to the court where Sharif had been involved in the police, pointing out that Sharif had not given a full account of his interactions with police when he gave his testimony last week.

The court heard how Sharif had been arrested in connection with three previous female partners who made accusations that he was abusive and threatening. Sharif says these were all false allegations.

Mrs Carberry pressed Sharif on one or two of his relationships, both taking place close to his UK visa expiration and involving marriage, or the discussion of marriage.

The court heard that there was some confusion over how many marriages Sharif had had. It was three official marriages and one ‘Islamic marriage’ where Sharif was engaged to his cousin in Pakistan while still married to Olga.

The jury was shown messages between Sharif and Qandeela (Beinash’s sister), where he talked about divorcing his cousin and threatening to divorce Batool.

Mrs Carberry asked about Sharif’s conviction for theft of £1,700 from the McDonalds where he worked. Sharif left the country after taking the money, stating it was because his grandmother was ill.

Sharif stated he told police the truth, but Mrs Carberry pointed out that he initially denied the theft only months later admitting it – saying that if he was going to steal, he would have stolen one of the larger bags. Sharif said: “I made a mistake, I admitted it, I paid it back”.

Batool’s barrister described Sharif as dishonest and cunning, and told the court he had 11 defaulted credit accounts and owed £17,000 to creditors.

Sharif told the court he drank alcohol, but denied getting angry while drunk.

Mrs Carberry went through records describing injuries to the other children. He accepted there was a burn mark on one of the children which he said was caused accidentally by BBQ tongs, but said he had not reported this as he should have.

The barrister also referred to a report made to police by Olga Sharif (his former wife and mother of Sara) about Sharif’s abusive behaviour, which Sharif denied.

She also told the court that a social worker described Sara “flinching and being surprised when Sharif cuddled [her]”, which Sharif accepted and said it was because she was young.

Sharif also admitted that he had told his GP he would go to an anger management course but never did.

The trial continues tomorrow with the further cross-examination of Urfan Sharif.

Friday, November 8

Urfan Sharif gave the final part of his evidence today under further questioning from his barrister, Naeem Mian KC.

Sharif gave the jury an account of his activity on the day of Sara’s death (August 8), describing how he arrived home to find Sara lying with her head in Beinash Batool’s lap. Batool told him Sara had been playing with one of her siblings and fallen down the stairs. In Batool’s words, Sara was “being dramatic and won’t get up”.

He told the court Sara said she was thirsty and sleepy. One of the children went to get water for Sara but she didn’t drink it. Sharif stated that he then laid Sara on the bed, but Batool told him to put her on the floor. Sharif shouted for someone to call an ambulance and performed CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation] on Sara for around 10 minutes, whilst Batool was shouting “wake her up, wake her up. She cannot die.”

Sharif then described how Batool told him to stop doing CPR. When he took his phone from his pocket, Batool took it off him and said she would tell Faisal Malik what had happened. Batool urged Sharif to think about the other children.

He had closed Sara’s eyes and picked her up, hugged her and kissed her. Sharif explained how Batool had told him it was one of their children’s fault, warning the police would put him prison and take away the other children.

Sharif told the court that Batool then made 30 phone calls to her family. Sharif told Batool to go and be with her family and take the other children, stating he was going to say Sara died in his care. But Batool’s family were scared and would not help.

He said he then took Sara to the bathroom so he could clean her in line with Muslim customs. He asked Batool about marks to Sara’s neck but Batool would not let him remove Sara’s top. Instead, Sharif washed Sara’s hair and face then took her to the bedroom wrapped in a towel.

Batool, he said, then gave him a second explanation for Sara’s injuries, which differed from the first and involved a fight between Sara and one of her siblings.

Sharif told the court he moved Sara into another room, at which point he described Batool dragging him out of the room, urging him to go outside, which he did.

Mr Mian KC asked Sharif if he had thought about calling police, he said he had but he didn’t because he was thinking about how that would affect his other children.

Sharif told the jury it was Batool’s idea to go to Pakistan as a family to sort out schooling arrangements for their children. Sharif had booked a one-way ticket as they did not know how long this would take.

After the flights were booked, Sharif and Batool discussed who should take the blame for Sara’s death to protect the child Batool said had injured Sara. Batool researched the difference between murder and manslaughter and told Batool he should take the blame as he would only get 3-5 years in prison, of which he would serve half.

Sharif told the court he wrote the note left with Sara but though the writing was his, the words were from Batool.

Sharif described the point at which they left Sara, during which he, Batool and Malik hugged and kissed Sara. Batool apologised to Sara multiple times and cried. He did not tell his other children what had happened to Sara.

Prior to leaving the house, Sharif told the court he removed the Ring doorbell so there was no evidence to contradict his story. He put the keys under the mat and moved his taxi so the emergency services could easily access the property.

When they arrived in Pakistan, Sharif said they told their family Sara was seriously injured after falling down the stairs but later told Sharif’s father that Sara had died.

The court heard how the video recorded for Sky was Batool’s idea, after being contacted directly by two journalists. The video was filmed by one of Sharif’s sisters and Batool wrote the script.

Sharif was asked why he had changed his mind following the confessions he first made to police. He said that he had become suspicious of Batool while in Pakistan and once he learnt the extent of Sara’s injuries, he felt sure one of his children was not capable of causing these.

He did not confess to Sara’s murder because: “neither me nor (my child) was responsible” and when pressed, he said Batool was responsible.

The trial continues on Monday (November 11) at 2pm when Urfan Sharif’s cross-examination will begin.

Thursday, November 7

Today, Urfan Sharif continued giving evidence under questioning by his barrister, Naeem Mian KC.

There was discussion about his movements from 19-23 July 2023 (23 July is the date of the last confirmed sighting of Sara by a neighbour) as traced by mobile phone data.

Sharif told the court that as a taxi driver, he worked seven days a week, 14-15 hours a day.  Typically, he said he would leave between 6 and 7am for airport drop offs and pick-ups, mostly for established customers.

Sharif also spoke about the ordering and delivery of the packing tape, telling the court he never used his Amazon account, that he wouldn’t have been at home at the time the tape was delivered, and he wouldn’t have opened the parcel because he didn’t order it.

He said he had slapped Sara multiple times “because I was made to”. He also suggested that his wife Batool told him that Sara hit the other children. He said Batool always accused Sara of acting out and hurting the other children and pointed at her: “Accused by that psycho sitting there”.

Sharif denied biting Sara and stated that he had provided his dental impressions for comparison. He described how Sara was bitten “like an animal” on the arm and stated that he didn’t do it. He pointed towards Batool in the dock and his defence counsel pointed out that she had refused to give her dental impressions.

Asked about Sara wearing a hijab, Sharif said that he was told it was Sara’s idea, and that she wanted to do it to look like Batool’s family, specifically her aunts Qandeela Saboohi and Amima Shahid.

He was asked if he was trying to hide injuries to Sara by dressing her in the hijab, to which he replied that he didn’t cause any injuries.

He was also asked if he would have bathed Sara and stated that he didn’t bathe any of the children while they lived in Hammond Road. He said it wouldn’t be right for him to bathe his daughter at that age because she was growing up.

Sharif was also asked about Sara wearing a nappy, and said that he was made aware of this at the end of July 2023. He said Batool had told him and said that the reason for it was “because she couldn’t control her bladder”, had wet herself a few times and that girls’ bodies change when they’re growing up and it’s normal for them not to be able to control their bladders.

Sharif was asked about the iron and whether he burnt Sara. He told the court he didn’t burn her and that he had never ironed, and that Batool did the ironing at home.

Asked about the witnesses who had observed Sara doing household chores and whether she did the ironing, he replied that she was too young for that. Mr Mian asked whether Sharif thought Sara could have just sat on the iron, Sharif replied ‘No sir’.

Sharif was also asked to recount an incident in June/July 2023 when he saw the packing tape being used. He said he went home in the evening for dinner before a late job, but wasn’t expected home by his family. He said he found Sara stood in the TV room with her arms bound behind her back with packing tape. He said Batool was also present and appeared shocked that he was there.

Sara was terrified, he said, and he had cut the packaging tape off her with a knife. He said he had
screamed at Batool, and that she said Sara had been naughty, so she had tied her hands so she
couldn’t hurt the children.

When Sharif was asked why he didn’t call the police, he said “I was stupid”. When asked why he
didn’t ask Batool to leave, he said “she’s very manipulative” and “I always believed her”.

Mr Mian also reviewed the forensic summary covering the carrier bag with blood in it and the tape with Sara’s DNA profile, with fingerprint details matching to Sharif found on the non- sticky side of tape and on the bag. He said it was a shopping bag he had moved from the recycling
bin to the rubbish bin and that he was “shocked that my fingerprints are found on that tape”.

On Tuesday, 8 August, 2023 Sharif told the court he and Batool had taken their younger son to Maybury Surgery for his immunisations. Sharif said he then had a pickup in New Haw at 9:30am.

At 9:59am he took a £70 fare from his customer at Heathrow T3. He went home, was there for the afternoon to sleep, and describes seeing Sara in the kitchen washing something at the sink. He went up to bed and woke up at around 5:30pm. He said of Sara, ‘that was the last time I kissed her’.

He accepted a fare via WhatsApp from a customer who wanted collecting from Woking station. At
6.24pm his taxi left Horsell. At 7.04pm Batool tried to call Urfan, but he couldn’t answer due to
dropping a customer off in Peaslake.

He said she made several calls due to a bad signal, and that Batool, told him Sara and her older brother were being really bad and asked him to come home. He asked her to put them on the phone so he could try and speak to them, but he said she told him to just come home.

There was nothing unusual about their conversation and he stopped at the Co-Op on the
way home. He said he couldn’t remember why he went there, maybe for cigarettes or vapes and
said he probably paid in cash.

The trial continues. Tomorrow Urfan Sharif’s testimony is expected to finish. It is not confirmed whether cross-examination, if any, will then take place.

Wednesday, November 6

Today, Urfan Sharif continued to give evidence under the questioning of his barrister, Naeem Mian KC.

From the content of the text messages between Beinash Batool and her sisters, Amima Shahid and Qandeela Saboohi, presented by the prosecution last week, Mr Mian picked out multiple references made by Batool to Sharif “beating the crap out of Sara”, which he denied.

Sara’s father maintained that nothing ever happened when he was at home with the children, and whenever Sara was injured, Batool always blamed Sara for how these were obtained, such as fighting with her brother.

Sharif claimed that Batool never allowed him to speak to Sara to find out what was going on, telling the court “Beinash did not let me speak with Sara to get to the bottom of what is happening. The only person who knew what was happening was Beinash.”

Two video clips were shown of Sharif and Batool arguing, one filmed in a bedroom in 2016 and one in the kitchen in 2019. In both cases he claimed she wouldn’t let him leave. In the kitchen video clip, Sharif can be seen eventually climbing out of the window to leave the house.

The decision to homeschool Sara was also discussed. In the texts between Batool and her sisters, she said that the decision to homeschool was made by Sharif.

He disputed this, telling the court that Batool was the driving force behind it, and that he wasn’t keen on homeschooling but thought it might resolve the bullying Sara had been experiencing at school and he denied that homeschooling was a plan to keep Sara from school because she was so badly bruised and denied ever telling Batool to conceal Sara’s bruises using makeup or sunglasses.

Sharif told the court that his marriage to Batool had “never been good”, adding “we always have issues, me and her. We were only living together because of the family.”

He also told the court that he wanted to leave Batool and travelled to Pakistan in November 2022 after buying a one-way ticket with no intention of coming back. He ended up returning on  December 3 after finding out his son was sick.

The jury was told that Faisal Malik, Sharif’s brother, flew into the UK on December 17, 2022 ahead of starting his university course in Portsmouth.

The jury was also told that after flying out to Pakistan following Sara’s death in August 2023, both Batool and Sharif spoke to Batool’s sister Qandeela and her brother Mohib. Sharif told them both that, if anyone asked, he was responsible for Sara’s death. He claimed he did this to protect Batool and the other children.

When questioned by Mr Mian as to whether he was responsible for Sara’s death, Sharif replied: “No sir, I wasn’t at home.”

The court also heard how Sharif spent £7,560 on gold bangles for Batool’s birthday on 16 July 2023.

He also gave her flowers, and the children gave her cards. There was also some discussion of phone call records between the defendants, with a particular focus on the day that the parcel tape was ordered from Amazon. The IP address traced the order to Batool at Hammond Road. Cell site data showed her in that vicinity and Sharif in Guildford at the time of the order.

The trial continues.

Tuesday, November 5

The Prosecution concluded its case today by showing additional text messages between Beinash Batool, Sara’s step mother, and her sister Qandeela Saboohi not previously seen by the jury.

The messages detailed Urfan’s physical abuse of the children, his insistence on Sara being
withdrawn from mainstream education, and the stress this caused Beinash in June 2022 when she was nine months pregnant.

In the messages, Beinash stated that she didn’t want to live in an abusive relationship and accused her sisters of not supporting her when she needed their help.

In February 2022 she stated in a message that she had to act fast and choose whether to save the
relationship or leave it.

Further agreed facts were also read out, detailing that Beinash Batool sought advice from solicitors in February 2022. They advised her on non-molestation orders and Child Arrangement Orders. In April 2022, she emailed them asking what forms she needed to obtain a court order for the children and stepchildren.

Other agreed facts covered a point raised by the jury earlier in the case around DNA and fingerprint testing of the iron, confirming that the handgrip and soleplate were tested and although DNA was present, the results were inconclusive.

The iron was not tested for fingerprints due to it being a routine household object which would have been handled so often that nothing of evidential value would be found.

Case for the defence opened

The defence case opened with a speech from Urfan Sharif’s barrister, Naeem Mian KC.  Mr Mian said that Sharif has been painted as “the villain of the piece” so far, but that he would take “the longest walk of his life” to the witness box and provide the context to everything the jury had heard so far.

He said that Sharif would talk about his relationship with Sara’s mother Olga, the acrimonious break- up that followed, the subsequent allegations and counter-allegations from both parties, and his successful battle to be awarded custody of Sara and her brother.

Mr Mian described difficulties in Batool and Sharif’s marriage but did not elaborate.

He said that Sharif was the sole breadwinner in the household and was out of the house for significant periods of time, that ‘he didn’t know what was going on at home’, and that he was always told whenever there was a visible bruise on Sara that one of her siblings was responsible.

Mr Mian told the court that on August 8, Batool had instructed Sharif to come home, where he
found Sara limp and was told that her older brother was responsible.

Batool told Sharif that Sara’s brother would go to prison for this and said that her children weren’t going into care because of what his children had done.

Mr Mian explained that they decided to go to Pakistan due to concerns that the children would be
taken into care.

He also outlined the fact that, of all the defendants, the only one to refuse to provide a dental impression was Batool.

Father gives evidence

Taking the stand, Sharif said that he was 42 and was born and had had lived in Pakistan before he came to the UK in September 2003 to progress his education.

He described his employment, including work at Burger King, then McDonald’s, before becoming a full-time taxi driver in 2011. He admitted that he had to leave McDonald’s because he stole £1,700 from them.

Sharif denied that he was responsible for Sara’s death. He also denied biting her, burning her, beating her with a cricket bat and beating her with a white pole.

Sharif told the court he met Olga online and they married in 2009. Their son was born in 2010 and Sara on 1 January 2013. They were together for six years and broke up in 2015. Their divorce was finalised in 2017.

Following allegations from Olga of domestic violence, coercive and controlling behaviour, and child abuse, Sara and her brother were put into Olga’s care in 2015 and supervised visits undertaken.

Sharif and Batool met in 2014. She moved in with him in May 2015 and they were married in August 2018.

In 2019 Sara and her brother told Sharif that they were being abused by their mother, which he
reported to Social Services. Sharif was awarded custody of the two children in October 2019.

Sharif told the court that he had wanted to leave Batool on many occasions, and that she had beaten him, one time requiring him to be taken to hospital, but that he chose to stay for the sake of their children.

In response to the text messages between Batool and her sister, Sharif said that was not being
controlled by him at all, that he didn’t care about money and that she was able to do whatever she
wanted.

Urfan Sharif will resume his evidence tomorrow.

Monday, November 4

Forensic pathologist Dr Nathaniel Cary was cross-examined today. He agreed that there were four
separate episodes of violence in relation to Sara’s fractures, none of which had caused or contributed to the death and were all in various stages of healing.

The fractures, he said, were a sign of blunt force trauma. He agreed that these injuries were consistent with a weighty object being used to damage skin and underlying bone if it was used with sufficient force.

Dr Cary was questioned specifically about the cricket bat and a white pole, both seized from the outbuilding at the family address. He confirmed that the cricket bat could cause fractures to the body depending on the weight and speed at which it was swung and agreed that the white pole, found to be part of an extendable highchair leg, could have caused the linear marks found on Sara’s legs and abdomen.

The pathologist was also questioned on whether a fist or foot could be used to inflict some of the injuries rather than a separate implement. He agreed that they could, especially the foot, which can be very damaging. But he added that it is difficult in pathology to identify a specific item as having caused a specific injury, and fairer to class things as “a definite maybe”.

Dr Cary explained that tramline injuries are caused by a cylindrical object and that if bruising is yellow, it is more than 18 hours old. This, he said, seems to be the only type of bruise that can be timed in this way, as more livid bruising can occur at any time from infliction of injury to healing.

He was also asked about the traumatic brain injury found and confirmed that an injury like this is evidence of at least moderate force being used.

Two neuropathologists had been consulted independently: Dr Kieran Allinson the Head of Neuropathology at Addenbrooke’s Hospital and Dr Safa Al-Sarraj  the Head of Neuropathology and Consultant Neuropathologist at Kings College Hospital.

All three pathologists agreed that dating a brain injury is far from an exact science but said that Sara’s injury would be no less than 48 hours before her death. They also said there was no pathological evidence to suggest that it was considerably older than 48 hours.

The defence played a video of Sara dancing in the living room at Hammond Road with her siblings, claiming that this was filmed on Sunday, August 6, though this is still to be confirmed.

Dr Cary agreed that Sara’s behaviour was inconsistent with having sustained a brain injury at the time that the video was captured.

The video was also examined for an injury to the ring fingers of Sara’s left hand. This injury could not be dated.

The potential iron injury and the possibility of sepsis from that injury was raised, as untreated sepsis can cause death. Dr Cary said that this was one of the possibilities in a multitude of injuries. Dr Cary confirmed that a head injury could have caused a fit, semi-consciousness or unconsciousness leading to breathing difficulties.

He also confirmed that Sara’s death would not have been sudden, but would have occurred over the course of a few hours. after hearing the evidence the jury was released by the judge early.

Following multiple concerns expressed by the jury, which found loud typing noise emanating from reporters in court distracting, the judge has requested that, from tomorrow, only silent keyboards will be allowed into court and any members of the press without one must go into the overflow court room.

The trial continues.

Friday, November 1

In the trial of those accused of Sara’s murder at the Old Bailey today the agreed facts of the case were reviewed, which included reports from Sara’s school, significant items seized from the address at Hammond Road, bank account statements, and details of the arrests of the defendants.

The court heard how concerns were noted by Sara’s school over bruising on her body in June 2022 and March 2023.

Several items that were seized from Sara’s home address were also reviewed by the court. These
included a leather belt which had full DNA samples at both ends for Sara Sharif, Urfan Sharif and
Faisal Malik.

A cricket bat also seized from the home was found to have Sara’s DNA profile on it, along with the DNA sample of Urfan Sharif and Faisal Malik.

Both items had no DNA trace of Beinash Batool on them.

The court heard how Sara’s DNA was a match for blood found inside a carrier bag at the home
address, as well as on the handles of the bag and on a piece of brown tape. Hairs found in this
exhibit were also a match for Sara.

It was also highlighted to the jury that Beinash Batool was the only defendant who had refused to
provide dental impressions of her teeth to be compared with bite marks found on Sara.

Earlier in the trial it had been explained that burns found on Sara’s body were likely to have been caused by a domestic iron.

At one point, a member of the jury asked if an electric iron found at Sara’s family home had been tested for fingerprints or DNA. It was explained that although it was swabbed for DNA, the results were inconclusive. The iron was not tested for fingerprints because, as an ordinary household item likely handled by multiple people, it would not have had evidential value.

The court also reviewed the bank accounts, both joint and separate, of Urfan Sharif, Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik. This included incomings, outgoings, balances and any significant purchases or movement of money.

Finally, the court was shown clips of the arrest of the three defendants at Gatwick Airport on 13
September 2023 and the Sky News broadcast video of Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool on
September 6 2023.

Thursday, October 31

Surrey Police Investigating Officer Leanne Sherwood presented CCTV footage gathered as part of the investigation. This included footage from the Co-Op in Horsell High Street, which showed Urfan Sharif entering and leaving the shop on the evening of August 8, believed to be the day that Sara died.

Video recordings showed the family leaving their home in Hammond Road on August 9, arriving at a Heathrow Airport car park and proceeding through Departures, queuing for security, going through passport control and passing through the boarding gates at Terminal 3.

Prosecutor William Emlyn Jones KC read out two sets of transcripts of text messages between
Beinash Batool and her sisters, Amima Shahid and Qandeela Saboohi. He confirmed that these were an extract and that there were thousands of messages in total.

The conversation between Batool and Amima ran from August 8, 2020 to August 11, 2023 and the conversation between Batool and Qandeela ran from July 25, 2019 to August 13, 2023.

Both conversations detail marital difficulties between Batool and Urfan Sharif, as well as allegations that Sharif physically abused Sara.

The jury was also shown messages sent to Qandeela by Batool, including images of Sara with bruising to her face.

Monday, October 28

This afternoon, Greg Robinson, the telecommunications cell site engineer, was cross examined by Faisal Malik’s defence team.

The cross examination included clarification of some of the entries in the cell site data analysis. Surrey Police analyst Vernie Govender was also cross examined by Faisal Malik’s defence who wanted to clarify evidence in reference to the timeline and an entry relating to Eat Out in Woking on August 1 as to whether it was an in-store order or a delivery.

Friday, October 25

At court today, statements from more neighbours of the Sharif family and Sara’s schoolteachers were read out. The court also heard statements from Dr Roland Kouble, a dental surgeon and forensic odontologist, and Mr Niall Martin, a consultant burns surgeon. No witnesses were called.

The first statement was from Brenin Lozeron, the husband of Judith Lozeron, who gave evidence yesterday. The Lozerons lived next door to the Sharif family in Hammond Road.

In the statement, Mr Lozeron said he had little interaction with the children and always saw Sara in a hijab. He heard noise from the family in the garden, but “once they were in the house, we didn’t hear a thing”.

Evidence was also read out from Rebecca Daborn, the daughter of Brenin and Judith Lozeron. She described visiting 6 Hammond Road and their children playing together, but Sara wasn’t there. She said she found Beinash Batool “easy to talk to, friendly, open”.

A statement was also read out from Fiona Mellon, whose rear garden is adjacent to the rear garden at 6 Hammond Road.

Ms Mellon described hearing a scream about five days before she spoke to police on August 11. It was around 4.30 or 5pm. She said she “just heard one scream for a couple of seconds that then stopped suddenly”, and that it sounded like a young female voice and different to Sara’s “screechy” sisters.

The neighbour said she it was so out of the ordinary that she wondered if she should call the police but didn’t hear anything further. For the next five or so days, Ms Mellon didn’t see the family at all.

Describing Sara as “spirited and outgoing” she said the last time she saw her was in July wearing her hijab.

Another statement was from Mia Carkett, Ms Mellon’s daughter, who said that Beinash Batool would occasionally apologise to her mother if the children were being noisy. She noted that in the week before Sara’s body was found the family seemed quiet.

Evidence was also read out from Paul Kent, who lived two doors away in Hammond Road and often worked from home. He described the children as sometimes noisy in the garden but said that their mother came out to deal with them and never seemed cross.

He described seeing the light on in their house at 4am the week Sara’s body was found and noted that as odd. He never saw anything that “was out of the ordinary or caused concern”.

Evidence was also provided by Lorraine Townson, a schoolteacher at St Mary’s, who said she once noticed a bruise on her face.

In her statement, Hayley Holden, a teaching assistant at St Mary’s, described how she worked with Sara in year 4 and part of year 5 to help her with her spelling. She said she noticed a mark on Sara when class teacher Helen Simmons mentioned it. Ms Holden said she did not feel overly concerned by Sara, noting there were other pupils she was more concerned about in the class.

Evidence from the odontologist and burns surgeon

In a written statement Dr Roland Kouble, a dental surgeon and forensic odontologist said he had analysed four injuries to Sara’s left forearm, one to her left wrist and one to her inner leg/thigh, concluding they were all probable human bite marks.

Dr Kouble was provided dental impressions of Urfan Sharif, Faisal Malik and Sara’s older brother and excluded all three as being responsible. He also said it was not possible the bites had been self- inflicted.

Dr Kouble said it was difficult to age the bites but said the ones on the arm were older than the one on Sara’s inner leg.

Finally, the court heard a written statement from Niall Martin, consultant burns surgeon, who provided a report on the burn injuries seen on Sara’s body.

These included one burn on each buttock that Mr Martin concluded were likely to have been caused in the same incident. It described it as a single contact burn and that it was at least two weeks old.

His view was that it had been intentionally inflicted and made by a domestic iron possibly and the iron found in the Sharif house.

Mr Martin also identified several burns on Sara’s feet, likely to have been caused by a scold injury, which were likely to have been exacerbated by Sara soiling herself when restrained. He also mentioned evidence of Sara being bound at the feet, which he said was also likely to have been deliberate.

Mr Martin said none of the burns had received proper medical attention.

He concluded that it was “highly likely that the deceased experienced daily pain and suffering prior
to the death”, including “physical discomfort and psychological suffering”, and that Sara would have “hobbled” and “grimaced” or “winced” if the injuries were touched. Mr Martin also said Sara’s suffering would have been obvious to those interacting with her regularly.

Thursday, October 24

The court continued to heard evidence from neighbours of the Sharif family.

Judith Lozeron, who was a neighbour in Hammond Road, told the court the children were “always quite nice and clean and quite smart” and that they seemed like a “family unit” and appeared to be “caring parents”.

However, she went on to say that she “didn’t see Sara nearly as much as the others”. She told the court that Sara was never smiling and described a “separateness” from Sara and the rest of the family.

Mrs Lozeron said she saw Faisal Malik fairly often but that Urfan Sharif had denied Faisal lived in the house when asked. She told the court she was aware Sara was being home schooled and was told it was because Sara had been bullied because of her hijab.

Sara, the former neighbour said,  always wore a hijab and was the only person in the family who did, and that she “really couldn’t see properly what she looked like.”

Mrs Lozeron was cross examined by Beinash Batool’s counsel, Caroline Carberry, who talked about Beinash being a caring mother with her hands full and asked her to describe an incident where she felt Urfan Sharif had been “belittling” towards Beinash.

She was also cross examined by Faisal Malik’s counsel, Michael Ivers, about how often she saw Faisal, which she said wasn’t very often.

Evidence was also provided by Fatimah Choudhry, a learning support assistant at St Mary’s Primary School in Byfleet. She described an incident where she heard Beinash Batool shout abuse at two of Sara’s younger siblings, who were being slow while coming into school. Ms Choudhry made an entry into CPOMS (Child Protection Online Monitoring System) about this.

Ms Choudhry was cross examined by Beinash Batool’s barrister, Tomas McGarvey, who asked questions about the incident. Ms Choudhry confirmed she had spoken to the headteacher about the incident and on another occasion after her brother, Usman, a parent at the school, had mentioned concerns about Beinash Batool.

Ms Choudhry said that Beinash Batool and Urfan Sharif had met with the headteacher, and both appeared upset when the language was raised.

Usman Choudhry recounted the incident of Beinash using “abusive language” when he gave his evidence. He said he had also seen Sara with bruises under her eye on one day.

During cross examination by Beinash Batool’s counsel, Tomas McGarvey, Mr Choudhry described Beinash’s behaviour as “more than a struggle, it was very aggressive behaviour”.

The court also heard evidence from Helen Simmonds, Sara’s year 4 and 5 class teacher. She described Sara as “essentially a happy child, she was often bubbly and at times she could be sassy.” She also said she could be “very spirited and bold and fierce with what she wanted to say”, and that she sometimes displayed attention-seeking behaviour.

In year 4, after the summer half term, Ms Simmonds received an email to say Sara would be home schooled because they were concerned about her progress and friends. Sara returned in year 5 but on 17 April 2023, Urfan Sharif sent an email saying Sara would again be home schooled.

Sara was still seen at the school when Beinash Batool dropped off her younger siblings but wasn’t seen when after the family moved house and took a taxi to travel to school.

On March 10 2023, Ms Simmonds saw a bruise on the underside of Sara’s chin and cheek that didn’t appear to look fresh. She said Sara had given conflicting answers as to from where this had come.

This was referred to the designated safeguarding lead and a social services referral was made by the school. On March 28, 2023, Beinash Batool told Ms Simmonds that Sara had a bruise on her cheek that was made by a pen. This was again referred to the safeguarding lead.

During cross examination by Beinash Batool’s counsel, Caroline Carberry, Ms Simmonds said the school had reported to Sara’s parents that Sara’s hijab had been pulled down by another child. Ms Simmonds also agreed that the reported pen mark did look like one.

Wednesday, October 23

The court heard evidence from Rebecca Spencer, who lived in a flat above the Sharif family between 2018 and 2019 at their previous address in Eden Grove Road in Byfleet.

Ms Spencer told the court that she worked from home. She said she knew Urfan Sharif was a taxi driver and was out during the day a lot. She said that Beinash Batool didn’t work and was at home the majority of the time.

Ms Spencer said that she heard noise from the Sharif family as soon as they moved in, and described sounds of crying, rattling and door slamming, as well as Beinash Batool screaming at the children. She described the rattling as sounding like someone locked in a room.

Ms Spencer said Sara was always doing chores and that she often looked after the younger children and described an occasion when she went round to the Sharif’s address due to the noise which she described as “fever pitch”. She asked if everything was okay, to which Beinash Batool replied “yes, yes” before slamming the door. Ms Spencer said she used to dread the end of the school day and the summer holidays.

The family said Ms Spencer usually dressed in Western-style clothing, and that they spoke English in the house. Ms Spencer moved out of her property in October 2020 and the property was rented by Chloe Redwin.

A warning was given by the judge after Ms Spencer was approached during a break whilst part
heard. Enquiries are ongoing to identify who approached her.

In the afternoon, the court heard evidence from Ms Redwin, who lived in the flat above the Sharif family from around November 2020 until April/March 2023.

Ms Redwin said that it was always noisy and that she would often hear the children screaming and an adult woman swearing. She also described hearing sounds of what she believed to be smacking, as well as doors being slammed.

She never saw anything of concern regarding the children’s appearance and also said how she often saw Sara doing chores, including hanging out the washing and taking the rubbish.

Ms 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.

In January 2023, Ms Redwin told the court that she saw Sara wearing a hijab. When she asked Urfan Sharif and Beinash Batool about it, they said Sara wanted to explore her Muslim faith.

During Ms Redwin’s evidence, Urfan Sharif was given a warning by the judge after he left the court without asking for permission.

Tuesday, October 22

The jury did not sit today.

Monday, October 21

The court heard evidence from Gregory Robinson, a cell site analyst with 35 years of experience working in the radio and telecommunications industry.

Mr Robinson explained how the movements of a mobile device can be analysed using core data records of each phone call and text, received and made. He also explained that the data shows when a phone is in a certain area.

Records of the three mobile phones belonging to the three defendants, as well as the telematics system within Urfan Sharif’s car had been examined. Mr Robinson will be cross examined at a later date.

Evidence was also heard from Surrey Police Analyst Vernie Govender, who continued to present an hour-by-hour timeline of the defendants’ movements in the three weeks prior to Sara’s death. The period presented today was August 4 to 9, the end of the timeline.

On August 8, the day Sara is believed to have died, data showed Sara’s father Urfan Sharif, her step mother Beinash Batool and one of their children going to Maybury Surgery in the morning, followed by Urfan going to Heathrow Airport and a series of calls between Urfan and Beinash.

From around 8.30pm, the data shows that Beinash made 30 calls to multiple people in around 14 minutes (this indicates some calls didn’t go through), before calling Southall Travel to enquire about travel to Pakistan.

The family’s movements on August 9 from their house to Heathrow Airport was also tracked.

Mr Govender will be cross-examined at a later date.

Friday, October 18

Professor Owen Arthurs, a specialist consultant of paediatric radiology at Great Ormond Street Hospital, gave evidence about the bone fractures Sara had suffered.

Prof Arthurs confirmed there were 25 individual fracture locations which he said ranged from acute fractures less than 10 days old to others up to 12 weeks old.

The jury was told that there was also evidence of a hyoid fracture, an extremely rare type of fracture,  the most likely cause of which was manual strangulation. It had occurred over six weeks before Sara’s death.

Prof Arthurs said that the pattern and severity of the injuries was “one of the worst” he had seen in his experience.

Surrey Police Analyst Vernie Govender continued to give evidence about the defendants’ movements in the weeks prior to Sara’s death.

Thursday, October 17

Professor Anthony Freemont, an osteoarticular pathologist, explained that he had identified an abnormality in Sara’s bone marrow, the most plausible cause of which was starvation or rapid removal of food, which showed her nutritional state in the last few days of her life.

The specialist professor had already told the court that radiology showed a number of fractures of different ages. In view of the number  and the histological examination he had conducted, Prof Freemont told the jury he had ruled out natural disease as the cause of Sara’s injuries and concluded that they were non-accidental injuries.

He was cross-examined by Caroline Carberry KC, Beinash Batool’s counsel, and Michael Ivers KC, counsel for Faisal Malik, in relation to whether the fractures had contributed to Sara’s death and whether all the fractures had occurred between 12 days and 12 weeks prior to death, or whether some could be older or younger.