It was unclear, even in court, if the uncle had participated in Sara's murder.
The sentence he received was for the reasoning he MUST have been aware that she was being abused, and he did nothing to help her.
It was unclear, even in court, if the uncle had participated in Sara's murder. The sentence he received was for the reasoning he MUST have been aware that she was being abused, and he did nothing to help her.
Still deserves all he gets for not stepping in. Not helping her or reporting it either!
It was unclear, even in court, if the uncle had participated in Sara's murder. The sentence he received was for the reasoning he MUST have been aware that she was being abused, and he did nothing to help her.
Still deserves all he gets for not stepping in. Not helping her or reporting it either!
Yes, he got 16 years for "causing or allowing Sara's death". He did nothing to help her.
It was unclear, even in court, if the uncle had participated in Sara's murder. The sentence he received was for the reasoning he MUST have been aware that she was being abused, and he did nothing to help her.
Still deserves all he gets for not stepping in. Not helping her or reporting it either!
Yes, he got 16 years for "causing or allowing Sara's death". He did nothing to help her.
"The father and stepmother of 10-year-old Sara Sharif are seeking permission to appeal against their sentences for her murder.
Court officials have confirmed to the BBC that Sharif, Batool and Malik have all lodged applications for leave to appeal against their sentences at the Court of Appeal.
In the cases of Sharif and Batool, the life sentence was automatic, so the pair are to appeal against the minimum terms they would spend in prison.
A hearing date for the appeals has not yet been set." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20k50klpv3o
It was expected, really. I mean, after all, the "father" claimed he "legally punished" Sara, so it must seem unfair to him to be punished at all. Either that or he doesn't like tuna.