Pramod Thomas is a senior correspondent with Asian Media Group since 2020, bringing 19 years of journalism experience across business, politics, sports, communities, and international relations. His career spans both traditional and digital media platforms, with eight years specifically focused on digital journalism. This blend of experience positions him well to navigate the evolving media landscape and deliver content across various formats. He has worked with national and international media organisations, giving him a broad perspective on global news trends and reporting standards.
The trial of Urfan Sharif and his wife Beinash Batool caused waves of revulsion in the country at the horrific way they had treated Sara Sharif.
There was anger too at how the bright, bubbly youngster had been failed by the authorities supposed to be in charge of her care.
Sharif, 43, Batool, 30, and her uncle, Faisal Malik, 29, all lost bids on Thursday to appeal against their sentences.
The court also refused a plea by the solicitor general's office to impose a stiffer whole-life sentence on Sharif.
Sara's father was sentenced in December to 40 years in prison for her murder, while her stepmother was ordered to remain in jail for at least 33 years.
Her uncle was sentenced to 16 years after being found guilty of causing or allowing her death.
Sara's body was found in bed at the family home in August 2023 covered in bites and bruises with broken bones and burns inflicted by an electric iron and boiling water.
Sara Sharif. (Photo: Surrey Police)
Seeking to reduce Sharif's term, lawyer Naeem Majid Mian argued that although Sara's treatment had been "horrendous" it did not merit his 40-year sentence.
"There was no intention to kill... and (the death) was not premeditated," he added.
But documents submitted to the court on behalf of the solicitor general, one of the government's top legal officers, called for Sharif to have an indefinite sentence imposed.
"It is submitted that the judge was wrong not to impose a whole life order on the offender," said lawyer Tom Little in a text submission.
A lawyer for Sara's stepmother also told the court that her sentence of 33 years was too long and did not "justly reflect her role".
Dismissing Sharif's appeal, Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, the highest-ranking judge in England and Wales, said: "We can see no arguable basis to challenge the conclusion of the trial judge."
Passing sentence in December after the trial, judge John Cavanagh said Sara had been subjected to "acts of extreme cruelty" but that Sharif and Batool had not shown "a shred of remorse".
They had treated Sara as "worthless" and as "a skivvy", because she was a girl. And because she was not Batool's child by birth, the stepmother had failed to protect her, he said.
"This poor child was battered with great force again and again."
A post-mortem examination of Sara's body revealed she had 71 fresh injuries and at least 25 broken bones.
She had been beaten with a metal pole and cricket bat and "trussed up" with a "grotesque combination of parcel tape, a rope and a plastic bag" over her head.
A hole was cut in the bag so she could breathe and she was left to soil herself in nappies as she was prevented from using the bathroom.
Police called the case "one of the most difficult and distressing" they had ever dealt with.
The day after Sara died, the three adults fled their home in Woking, southwest of London, and flew to Pakistan with five other children.
Her father, a taxi driver, left behind a handwritten note saying he had not meant to kill his daughter.
After a month on the run, the three returned to the UK and were arrested after they landed. The five other children remain in Pakistan.
There has been anger in the UK that Sara's brutal treatment was missed by social services after her father withdrew her from school four months before she died.
Sharif and his first wife, Olga, were well known to social services. In 2019, a judge decided to award the care of Sara and an older brother to Sharif, despite his history of abuse.
The school had three times raised the alarm about Sara's case, notably after she arrived in class wearing a hijab which she used to try to cover marks on her body which she refused to explain.
Dr Malhotra, an advisor to US health secretary Robert F Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Action, also serves as Chief Medical Advisor to Make Europe Healthy Again, where he campaigns for wider access to vaccine information.
Dr Aseem Malhotra, a British Asian cardiologist, and research psychologist Dr Andrea Lamont Nazarenko have called on medical bodies to issue public apologies over Covid vaccine mandates, saying they have contributed to public distrust and conspiracy theories.
In a commentary published in the peer-reviewed journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, the two argue that public health authorities must address the shortcomings of Covid-era policies and acknowledge mistakes.
They note that while early pandemic decisions were based on the best available evidence, that justification cannot continue indefinitely.
“Until the most urgent questions are answered, nothing less than a global moratorium on Covid-19 mRNA vaccines — coupled with formal, unequivocal apologies from governments and medical bodies for mandates and for silencing truth seekers — will suffice,” they write.
Dr Malhotra, an advisor to US health secretary Robert F Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Action, also serves as Chief Medical Advisor to Make Europe Healthy Again, where he campaigns for wider access to vaccine information.
In the article titled Mandates and Lack of Transparency on COVID-19 Vaccine Safety has Fuelled Distrust – An Apology to Patients is Long Overdue, the authors write that science must remain central to public health.
“The pandemic demonstrated that when scientific integrity is lacking and dissent is suppressed, unethical decision-making can become legitimised. When this happens, public confidence in health authorities erodes,” they write.
They add: “The role of public health is not to override individual clinical judgment or the ethics that govern medical decision-making. This is essential because what once appeared self-evident can, on further testing, prove false – and what may appear to be ‘safe and effective’ for one individual may be harmful to another.”
The article has been welcomed by international medical experts who say rebuilding trust in public health institutions is essential.
“It might be impossible to go back in time and correct these major public health failings, which included support of futile and damaging vaccine mandates and lockdowns and provision of unsupported false and misleading claims regarding knowledge of vaccine efficacy and safety, but to start rebuilding public confidence in health authorities (is) the starting point,” said Dr Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease, Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute, Adelaide.
“This article is a scholarly and timely review of the public health principles that have been so clearly ignored and traduced. Without a complete apology and explanation we are doomed to pay the price for failure to take up the few vaccines that make a highly significant contribution to public health,” added Angus Dalgleish, Emeritus Professor of Oncology, St George’s University Hospital, UK.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.