Life sentences for the killers of Sara Sharif

The father and stepmother of Sara Sharif were branded sadistic ‘executioners’ by the schoolgirl’s mother as they face life sentences for her murder.

Sara was found dead on a bed in her home in Woking on 10 August 2023 after being regularly beaten with a cricket bat and metal pole.

The 10-year-old had suffered fractures to the arms, shoulder blades and ribs. Her back was broken in ten different places and she had been bitten and burned with an iron.

Her family had fled to Pakistan in a BMW X5, one of two BMWs owned by her father, Uber driver Urfan Sharif, 43.

Sharif, who routinely beat his daughter while her wrists and ankles were tied with packaging tape, was convicted of her murder.

Stepmother Beinash Batool, 30, who left six bite marks on Sara’s body, also denied but was convicted of murder.

Stepmother Beinash Batool, 30, who left six bite marks on Sara’s body, also denied but was convicted of murder.

Sara’s uncle McDonald’s worker, Faisal Malik, 29, who moved in with the family in December 2022 was cleared of murder but convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child.

Mr Justice Cavanagh will sentence them later today in a televised hearing.

Prosecutor Bill Emlyn Jones, KC, read an impact statement from Sara’s Polish mother Olga Domin where she called the killers ‘cowards’.

Ms Domin watched proceedings remotely via a video-link from Poland as her impact statement was read out.

She said: ‘Sara was always smiling. she had her own unique character.

‘The only thing I had left to give to my daughter was to give her a beautiful Catholic funeral that she deserved.

‘Sara is not far from home and she is visited every day. We always light candles for her and flowers for her.

‘She is now an angel who looks down on us from heaven. She is no longer experiencing violence.

‘To this day I cannot understand how someone can be such a violent sadist to a child.

‘I hoped when she grew up to meet. Now that won’t happen. She has left us too soon.

‘I cannot understand what is wrong with these people and how they allowed it.

‘They are sadists, though even this word is not enough for them I would say they are executioners.’

Batool was in the dock today wearing a black suit jacket and blouse with Malik sat to her right in a grey prison tracksuit accompanied by an interpreter.

Bearded Urfan sat to his right wearing a grey pullover.

The three were all separated with dock officers between them.

Batool looked apprehensively from one side of the court room to the other while Urfan stared down at his lap as the prosecutor spoke.

All three spoke quietly to confirm their names at the start of the hearing.

More than a dozen police officers were in court and three members of the jury returned to watch the sentencing.

The couple had carried out a ‘campaign of abuse’ to discipline Sara and became furious with her when she was sick or soiled herself because of the torture they inflicted.

She was regularly tied up with brown packaging tape and forced to wear hoods made from carrier bags.

If she was ‘naughty’ Batool would call Urfan home to beat her with a variety of weapons.

She was burned on the buttocks with an iron and forced to wear a nappy instead of going to the toilet when she was trussed up.

Nine people were living in the two-bedroomed house and the family were referred to social services when teachers noticed bruises on Sara’s face.

Sara had been fostered as baby amid abuse allegations but social workers ignored the concerns of the last teachers to see their pupil alive.

She died in agony when her sadistic family could not longer cover up her bruises with a hijab and kept her away from the prying eyes of neighbours and teachers for ‘home schooling.’

Sara’s body was found in the bedroom where they had left her, bearing the scars and bruises of at least 71 external injuries.

She had ten spinal fractures and further fractures to her right collar bone, both shoulder blades, both arms, both hands, three separate fingers, bones near the wrist in each hand, two ribs and her hyoid bone in the neck.

Plastic bags bound with packaging tape were used to hood Sara and she was forced to wear a nappy as she could not use the toilet when she was tied up.

The girl had been burned on her buttocks with an iron and had six bite marks on her body.

Urfan and Malik provided dental samples to the police to prove they did not leave the bite marks but Batool refused to do so.

Urfan admitted to beating Sara as far back as 2021.

He came to the UK on a student visa in 2003 and dated three Polish women in an effort to find a wife to get an EU passport so he could remain in the UK.

All three women went to the police to accuse him of domestic abuse, saying they had been assaulted by him and held against their will.

He married the third woman, Sara’s mother Olga. He met Batool in 2015 and split from Olga around the same time.

While married to Olga around 2011, Urfan went to Pakistan and had an Islamic marriage to his first cousin but he insisted the marriage was never consummated.

Various relatives were crammed into his house in Hammond Road, and neighbours often heard the distressed screams of a child coming from the home.

One neighbour said she had never seen Sara smile on the occasions she was allowed out of the house.

Despite her Muslim background, Sara had attended St Mary’s Church of England school in Byfleet where teachers had noticed bruises on her.

The referrals were made to social services after Sara gave different stories about the injuries, but tragically nothing was done.

Sara had never worn a hijab but in the last eight months of her life Urfan and Batool began making her wear one to hide the bruises they were causing.

In April 2023 her injuries forced them to take her out of school entirely and she was not monitored at all the final desperate months of her life.

At home she was treated as a ‘skivvy’ and made do all the family’s laundry and take out the rubbish in between beatings and abuse.

Batool was regularly heard screaming and swearing at her by neighbours as she was locking her into a bedroom.

Mr Jones earlier told the jury: ‘Poor Sara Sharif was brutally mistreated, abused and violently assaulted over a long period. It had been going on for years.

‘Those beatings were intended you may think to punish, to impose discipline, no doubt to vent their furious anger at a little girl.

‘Sara was killed as a result of serial and serious violence.’

The family returned to the UK a month after the body was found and were arrested at Gatwick airport after flying in on business class.

Urfan spent his first six days of evidence denying abusing Sara and blaming his ‘psycho wife’ for causing her injuries.

He pointed at his wife and called her an ‘animal’ for abusing and biting his daughter.

But on his seventh day in the witness box Urfan dramatically told the court he had something to say before admitting responsibility for Sara’s death.

Jurors wept as Urfan confessed to beating her repeatedly with the cricket bat and metal pole when she was tied up.

He said he returned home to find her dying in Batool’s arms and admitted to giving her ‘a couple of wacks’ with a metal pole.

Urfan tearfully confessed to causing her death and intending to cause her really serious harm – but then changed his mind after he was advised he had pleaded guilty to murder.

He later claimed he had not intended his daughter any harm when he beat her repeatedly with a cricket bat.

Urfan told the court ‘I am cruel’ but could offer no explanations for the horrendous beatings he meted out to a defenceless ten year old girl.

He said: ‘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 every single thing that happened to my daughter.’

Urfan insisted he was not responsible for biting or burning Sara and suggested other children might have been responsible for burning her with an iron.

He told how Batool would call him when Sara was ‘naughty’ and he would beat her with the metal pole.

But after spending six days calling his wife a ‘psycho’, he suddenly decided she was not responsible after all and was ‘a good mother.’

He accepted in court that the jury could not believe a word he said.

Batool had been messaging her two sisters for years telling them that Urfan was ‘beating the c—p’ out of Sara but neither called the police, advising her to calm down and read the Quran.

In one message she said ‘she’s covered in bruises literally beaten black.’

Urfan and Batool denied but were convicted of murder.

Malik denied and was cleared of murder but convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child.

Rachael Wardell, Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning at Surrey County Council, said: ‘Sara’s death is incredibly distressing and we share in the profound horror at the terrible details that have emerged during the trial. We cannot begin to comprehend the suffering that poor Sara endured at the hands of members of her family who should have loved, protected, and cared for her.

‘The focus of the trial has been on the evidence needed to secure the convictions of those responsible for Sara’s death. This means that until the independent safeguarding review concludes, a complete picture cannot be understood or commented upon.

‘What is clear from the evidence we’ve heard in court is that the perpetrators went to extreme lengths to conceal the truth from everyone.

‘We are resolute in our commitment to protecting children, and we are determined to play a full and active part in the forthcoming review alongside partner agencies, to thoroughly understand the wider circumstances surrounding Sara’s tragic death.’

Prosecutor Bill Emlyn Jones asked the judge to consider giving Urfan and Batool whole life orders meaning they will never be eligible for release.

He said cases where a whole life order can be passed include the murder of a child if abduction or sexual or sadistic motivation is present.

Mr Emlyn Jones accepted there is no evidence the defendants gained pleasure from their actions.

‘This case, the murder of Sara, for all its dreadfulness does not precisely fit within either of those two definitions.

‘We recognise the long-lasting serial cruelty and violence to Sara lacks the particular aspect of sadism that the Court of Appeal has said is being driven at.

‘One aspect of this case which is absent is any evidence pain was inflicted on Sara for the defendant’s pleasure.

‘The prosecution accept the murder or death of Sara was not specifically premeditated or planned.

‘However we do submit the violence to Sara was substantially premeditated.

‘It had plainly became the routine approach to discipline Sara for their perception of her naughtiness or misbehaviour.’

He said the Court of Appeal has said that some rare cases may fall into the category without meeting the precise criteria and the judge should consider doing so.

He said: ‘This is a case which bristles with aggravating features.

‘This is murder of a child especially vulnerable by virtue of her age.

‘She had suffered serious violence since at least age of just six-years-old.

‘The violence was not just excessive but was sustained.

‘Unimaginable levels of pain, suffering and anxiety were caused to Sara for a long period prior to her death.

‘This was a gross breach of trust because the victim was their own little child in their care.

‘She suffered this violence in her own home where she ought to have been entitled to feel loved and safe and cared for.’

He said Urfan and Batool had mitigation because they did not intend to kill Sara.

He said the pair had ‘joint culpability’ and Batool should receive the same sentence as Urfan.

‘It is wrong to submit that Urfan Sharif was alone or principally responsible for the violence.

‘She of course was out of the house for much of time while Batool remained in charge of Sara’s discipline.’

Urfan’s barrister Naeem Mian, KC, said: ‘Nothing I say is intended to diminish or mitigate the horror that that poor child was put through.

‘Inevitably the facts as have been rehearsed this morning and that which unfolded during the currency of the trial quite rightly evokes a sense of outrage, anger and disgust.

‘What we need to remember is that despite such feelings of anger your Lordship will need no reminder from me that the task before my Lordship this morning must be approached dispassionately.’

Mr Mian said the appropriate starting point in law was 15 years but he accepted this would be significantly uplifted by aggravating factors.

He said the primary mitigation was that Urfan did not intend to kill Sara.

‘The circumstances in which my Lordship has heard from Mr Sharif and of course will have made an estimate therefore of Mr Sharif there is precious little as far one can say as far as he is concerned.’

He said Urfan ‘accepts responsibility for that which he did’ but that Batool was jointly responsible.

‘He was not at home all the time. The second defendant [Batool] was.

‘We share the view expressed by the crown that they are equally as culpable and your Lordship ought not to draw any distinction between them.

‘No explanation has been on behalf of the second defendant for the multiple bite marks the poor child was subject to.’

Mr Mian said the court should be cautious when taking into account allegations that Sharif had been violent to previous partners which have not been proved.

‘He knows a sentence of great substance awaits him and he understand what that will mean for him given the age is now.

‘He is conscious of and accepts at last that which he is repressible for.

‘In the circumstances there is precious little else we can now advance for him and all one can do on his behalf is ask my Lordship to consider matters in the round, who is responsible for what, and of greater significance to him to afford him, that which he did not afford Sara, but to afford him some possibility of release in the distant future.’

There were loud cheers from the packed public gallery as Mr Justice Cavanagh sentenced Urfan to life with a minimum term of 40 years.

A juror who had returned to watch the sentence also cheered, saying ‘yes!’.

Urfan stood looking at the floor clasping his hands together.

Batool was given life with at least 33 years in jail.

Malik was jailed for 16 years.

The three defendants looked down at the floor as the judge spoke.

The judge said: ‘Sara’s death was the culmination of years of neglect, frequent assaults and what can only be described as the torture of this small child, mainly but not entirely at the hands of her father, you Urfan.

 

‘The degree of cruelty involved was almost inconceivable.

‘It happened in plain sight in front of the rest of the family including for at least eight months in front of you, Faisal Malik.

‘The courts at the Old Bailey have been witness to many accounts of awful crimes but few can be more terrible than the story of discipline and violence to this small child which the jury have had to hear.

‘It can be no exaggeration to describe the abuse of Sara as torture.

‘None of you have shown a shred of true remorse.

‘You Urfan maintained for six days that all of the injuries were inflicted to Beinash Batool.

‘Eventually when it became clear you had no credibility you changed tack and accepted responsibility for Sara’s death in an attempt to exonerate your co-defendants.

‘But even then your stated remorse was no more than a ploy, you were still trying to wriggle out of responsibility for your crimes.’

He said life sentences meant the Urfan and Batool would ‘face the consequences for the rest of their lives.

‘The sentence should not be seen by anyone as being intended to be a measure of value of Sara’s life. Nothing I can do will provide recompense for the loss of Sara’s life.’

He added: ’This case has raised questions about whether more could have been done to prevent the tragic consequences in this case.

‘It is not my role to present an opinion on this matter and I do not have enough information to do so.

‘The primary responsibility for the death of Sara rests squarely with the three of you.

‘However I will make one observation. This case brings into sharp relief the danger of unsupervised homeschooling of vulnerable children.

‘You were able to hide your abuse by simply announcing she would be homeschooled.

‘Of course there are many cases when parents take children out of school for good reasons with the best of intentions.

‘It is a matter of concern that parents with malign and ill will towards their children appear to be able to homeschool at will and without supervision.’

The minimum terms will include the time the defendants have already spent on remand.

Earlier in his remarks the judge said he would outline the full facts of the case so the ‘full ordeal’ could be ‘brought into the open.’

He said: ‘Urfan Sharif, it is clear from the evidence your assaults on Sara commenced about 2019, soon after she moved into the family home and from then on Beinash Batool regularly reported to her sister that you would go crazy and beat Sara.

‘She sent her photographs and it is clear in them you regularly assaulted Sara.

‘You had also designed unpleasant punishments for her.

‘On occasion you would wake her up in the middle of the night to inflict punishments on her.

‘You Batool did not stand in Urfan Sharif’s way and did nothing significant to protect Sara.

‘You assisted and encouraged in the assaults though I can’t be sure that until the end you physically participated.

‘There are many disturbing things about the way you treated Sara.

‘It is clear from a very young age Sara was treated as a skivvy in the family.

‘She was made to do the washing and hang it up, made to tidy up the house.

‘From time to time you would perform kindness to Sara but in general neither of you had any concern for her happiness or quality of life of this small child.

‘You treated her as if she was worthless and made no allowances for her age.

‘At a time when she was subject to physical abuse she was also being deprived of education.

‘For some time Sara was made to wear a hijab and her whole body was covered up, not for any religious reasons but because she was made to do do to cover up the bruises all over Sara’s body.

‘As for motives Urfan Sharif you treated her in such a way because you considered it to be your right.

‘Sara was a brave, feisty child. She was not submissive as you wanted her to be.

‘She stood up to you and I have no doubt your ego and and sense of self-importance was boosted by the beatings.

‘Sara was not a particularly badly behaved child, she was a normally behaved child.’

He said Batool did not ‘care about Sara enough to save her’ and did not stand up to her husband.

He said he did not doubt she was subject to coercion and control by Urfan but she had ‘a strong character’ and should have reported him for his treatment of Sara.

‘The stress, pain and trauma this will have caused to Sara is hard to contemplate.’

‘I have no doubt whatsoever that you Malik were aware of the campaign of torture perpetrated against Sara by your brother.

‘The home was too small and crowded for there to be any other realistic conclusion.

‘You were not a child, you were 28 and anyone however much in awe of their brother they were should have recognised what was happening to Sara was dangerous and wrong and needed to be stopped.

‘There is no reason you could not have summoned help from outside the home.’

The judge said the medical evidence in the case had been ‘harrowing.’

He said that he was sure Batool was responsible for bite marks found on Sara.

Urfan shook his head as the judge said Sara had been left helpless tied up and hooded.

‘This treatment of a 10-year-old child was nothing short of gruesome. It is hard to imagine how terrifying it must have been for Sara especially as the treatment was at the hands of her own parents.’

He said the steps taken after Sara’s death to immediately flee to Pakistan were ‘extraordinary’.

‘Sara was a beautiful little girl, somewhat small for her age. She was full of life and opportunity.

He said he was sure Urfan had abused his ex-partners.

He said Urfan did not intend to kill Sara but ‘intended she would have a life filled with pain and misery.

Earlier Malik’s barrister Micheal Ivers, KC, said Malik had no idea about the ‘dysfunctional’ family he was moving into when he came to the UK.

He said: ‘He lacked courage. He did not intervene when he should have intervened. It would have taken quite a bit of courage as the junior brother coming to this country and staying there to contact other people and tell them what was going on.

‘He was an unconfident person.’

He said his time in custody would be difficult due to the reporting of the case.