Stepmum & Uncle of Sara Sharif Refuse to Testify: Jury Allowed to Infer Silence in Trial Shocker!

Hi and welcome to this Video Production News Court Report.

The stepmother and uncle of Sara Sharif have opted not to give evidence in their defense during their ongoing murder trial at the Old Bailey. Both Beinash Batool, 30, and Faisal Malik, 29, were advised by their respective barristers about the potential inferences the jury might draw from this decision, in accordance with Justice Cavanagh’s direction. Both, alongside Sara's father, Urfan Sharif, 42, deny charges of murder and causing or allowing the death of the 10-year-old.

The trial has previously heard harrowing evidence detailing Sara's injuries, which included burns, probable human bite marks, and scalding. A post-mortem revealed she had been subjected to prolonged physical abuse, with injuries inflicted over more than two years. Items linked to the alleged abuse, such as a bloodstained cricket bat, a metal pole, and a rolling pin carrying Sara's DNA, were recovered near the family home in Woking, Surrey.

Earlier in the trial, Urfan Sharif admitted under cross-examination to beating Sara and causing her death but denied intending serious harm or murder. He also recanted an earlier description of his wife, Ms. Batool, as a "psycho." The prosecution has highlighted inconsistencies in his testimony, particularly in relation to his initial confessions to police after fleeing to Pakistan with his co-defendants and Sara's five siblings on August 9, 2023, a day before her body was discovered.

The jury has been instructed to return later this week for the judge’s legal directions as the trial nears its conclusion.

ACCESS TO THE LAW: Understanding the Crime and Sentencing

As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ understanding of UK criminal law, we explore the implications of a defendant choosing to remain silent or refusing to give evidence in court.

Under UK law, a defendant is entitled to remain silent during their trial, including choosing not to be cross-examined. However, under Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the jury is permitted to draw an adverse inference from this silence, provided they believe it is justified. This means the jury may consider the defendant’s decision as potentially indicative of guilt or as a failure to rebut the prosecution’s evidence.

It is important to note that this inference alone cannot be used to convict; it must be supported by other evidence in the case. The judge will typically instruct the jury on how to appropriately consider such silence in their deliberations.

This principle ensures a balance between protecting the defendant’s right to silence and the jury’s ability to evaluate all relevant factors in reaching a verdict.

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