Father Admits Beating 10-Year-Old Sara to Death with Bat-Shocking Court Confession Revealed as He Takes "Full Responsibility" But Denies Intent to Kill-Trial Uncovers Disturbing Details of Brutal Abus

Hi and welcome to this Video Production News Court Case update.

In a shocking turn at the Old Bailey, minicab driver Urfan Sharif, accused of murdering his 10-year-old daughter Sara Sharif, took the stand in his own defense. Under intense cross-examination by Caroline Carberry KC, representing his wife, Beinash Batool, Sharif made a series of confessions that left the courtroom in stunned silence.

Sharif, who had previously pleaded not guilty, admitted for the first time to hitting Sara with a cricket bat, causing at least 25 fractures. He stated, “I take full responsibility,” but maintained that he never intended to kill her. This statement marks a stark departure from his earlier claims, where he blamed his wife for the injuries and denied direct involvement.

Ms. Carberry opened her questioning with reference to a handwritten note found at the family home, where Sara’s body was discovered. The note, left beside Sara’s lifeless body, read: “Love you Sara. 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 that I will hand over myself and take punishment.”

Confronted with the note, Sharif initially attempted to deflect responsibility, suggesting that his initial confession was made out of fear and a desire to protect his family. However, Ms. Carberry pressed him further, asking: “Did you kill your daughter by beating her, as you stated in the note?” Sharif, with a defeated look, responded, “Yes, she died because of me.”

As the cross-examination continued, Ms. Carberry questioned Sharif about the injuries Sara sustained, which included multiple fractures, bruises, and bite marks. She asked directly: “In the weeks before she died, Sara suffered multiple fractures to her body, didn’t she? And it was you who inflicted those injuries?” Sharif hesitated briefly before responding, “Yes.”

Ms. Carberry continued to probe the extent of Sharif’s violence towards Sara. She asked: “Did you use a cricket bat to beat her?” Sharif replied quietly, “Yes, ma’am.” She pressed on: “Did you use that cricket bat as a weapon on her on a number of occasions?” Sharif admitted, “Yes, I did.”

The atmosphere in the courtroom grew tense as Ms. Carberry sought to clarify whether Sharif had intended to cause serious harm, a crucial element in proving the charge of murder. She asked: “Did you intend to cause her really serious harm when you beat her with that cricket bat?” Initially, Sharif replied, “Yes,” but moments later, he appeared to retract his statement, saying, “I did not want to hurt her. I didn’t want to harm her.”

Ms. Carberry then asked pointedly: “Do you accept that your beating caused her death?” Sharif responded, “Yes.” She followed up with a critical question: “Do you accept that you intended to cause her really serious harm?” This time, Sharif answered, “No.”

The defense attempted to argue that Sharif’s actions, while excessive, were not premeditated and lacked the intent necessary to meet the legal threshold for murder. They suggested that his repeated admission of responsibility was an emotional response, not a legal confession of intent.

In stark contrast, the prosecution highlighted Sharif’s earlier verbal confession to Surrey Police, made while he was in Pakistan after fleeing the UK. During that call, Sharif had stated unequivocally that he had beaten Sara “too much,” leading to her death. This earlier admission, combined with the handwritten note and his subsequent confessions under cross-examination, has put Sharif in a precarious position legally.

The trial, presided over by Mr. Justice Cavanagh, continues as the jury will now have to weigh Sharif’s conflicting statements and decide whether his repeated beatings of Sara were acts of severe discipline that went too far or if they were deliberate attempts to cause grievous harm, thus meeting the criteria for murder under UK law.

ACCESS TO THE LAW: Understanding the Crime and Sentencing.

As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK Criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles:

Under UK criminal law, a murder conviction requires proof of mens rea — the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. In this case, Sharif’s admissions in court and his earlier note imply awareness of his violent actions, but his insistence on a lack of intent challenges the prosecution’s case.

His initial confessions and subsequent denials complicate the assessment of intent. The jury will need to evaluate this alongside the evidence presented, including Sharif’s own words and the medical findings indicating sustained physical abuse over a period of time.

Hearsay evidence, such as Sharif’s call from Pakistan, can be admissible if it constitutes an admission against interest, offering insight into the defendant’s state of mind at the time. However, its weight will depend on the context in which it was made and how it aligns with the direct evidence presented at trial.

The outcome of this case will largely rest on whether the jury believes Sharif’s initial admissions or his current narrative, attempting to mitigate his culpability.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all, stay safe, and I’ll see you then.

Bénédict Tarot Freeman

Editor-at-Large

VPN City-Desk

citydesk@vpnldn.co.uk