Sex beast killed my cousin & hid her in freezer… why is Starmer ignoring grieving families to let predators out early?
Victims and families of the worst offenders shouldn't be 'collateral damage' in quest to do more to help criminals turn their lives around
WOKE JUSTICE Sex beast killed my cousin & hid her in freezer… why is Starmer ignoring grieving families to let predators out early?
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
I KNOW one day my cousin's murderer will probably be getting out of prison and going back to his family.
But Jan is never coming back home to ours.
9
Jan Mustafa, a 38-year-old mother to a then 11-year-old girl, was brutally murdered by Zahid Younis
Credit: Supplied
9
Ayse Hussein with her cousin Jan
Credit: Supplied
9
Zahid Younis was sentenced to life with a minimum jail term of 38 years
Credit: PA
My cousin Jan Mustafa, a 38-year-old mother to a then 11-year-old girl, was brutally murdered by a serial serious sexual and violent offender, Zahid Younis.
After killing her, he callously kept her body in a freezer in his east London flat for a year alongside another victim he'd murdered - Henriett Szucs.
Evidence showed both women had been subjected to very significant violence before their deaths, and Younis was sentenced to life in prison, with a minimum jail term of 38 years.
Nothing can bring our beautiful Jan back, and the impact of her loss has affected us all in so many ways.
But we have to start listening to the views of all victims and the public on what justice means.
The Independent Sentencing Review, released this week, was a real opportunity to change that.
But Ex-Tory minister David Gauke - the person who led the review - refused to meet us.
Mr Gauke's proposals, accepted by the government to free up 10,000 cells in Britain's overrun jails, will see some killers and rapists eligible for release after serving just half of their sentence, rather than two thirds.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood is also looking at plans to make chemical castration mandatory for paedophiles and rapists.
Other criminals on Standard Determinate Sentences with earlier release points can be freed after just a third of their time if they demonstrate good behaviour.
Parents of murdered Sarah Everard plea for more whole-life jail terms for worst offenders
9
Ayse Hussein helped form the Justice for Victims Campaign group
Credit: Supplied
9
Jan was the mother of an 11-year-old girl
Credit: Supplied
9
The body of Henriett Szucs was also found in Younis' freezer
Credit: PA
9
Forensic markers on the bedroom carpet at the home of Zahid Younis in Canning Town, east London
Credit: PA
But it is hard to believe letting serious offenders like rapists and child abusers out of prison earlier is what victims and their families want.
In fact, across the hundreds of pages of the report, there is no discussion at all about what victims and their families might consider to be justice.
Of course victims and families shouldn't dictate that, but surely they should be at the heart of that decision?
'Collateral damage'
I joined others in forming the Justice for Victims Campaign group because everything I experienced after Jan's murder taught me that victims and their families are not at the heart of the justice system in the way they should be.
My co-founders have all had direct experience of serious sexual and violent crime.
Jeremy and Susan Everard, the parents of 33-year-old Sarah Everard who was abducted whilst walking home, raped and murdered by police officer Wayne Couzens.
Katie Brett, whose 16-year-old sister Sasha was raped and stabbed more than 100 times by her killer before he set her body on fire.
Paula Hudgell OBE, who campaigns on behalf of her adopted son Tony, who lost his lower legs as a result of child cruelty at the hands of his birth mother.
Becky and Glen Youens, whose four-year-old daughter Violet Grace was killed by a dangerous driver who spent barely more time in prison than their daughter was alive.
It is hard to believe letting serious offenders like rapists and child abusers out of prison earlier is what victims and their families want
Ayse Hussein
Our campaign group is focused on sentencing and ensuring it delivers true justice for victims and their families.
We welcome the investment to create new prison places - and of course, offenders leading troubled lives of addiction and mental health issues can sometimes be better off outside of prison.
But the victims and families of the worst offenders shouldn't be collateral damage as part of a desire to do more to help those people turn their lives around.
Our group will be working with MPs in coming months to make sure they aren't.
We aren't getting justice often enough, so please, listen, learn and treat us all the same.
Give us what our loved ones deserve.
That requires punishment that fits the crime.
9
The parents of murdered Sarah Everard are co-founders of the Justice for Victims Campaign group
Credit: PA
9
The group is calling on the government to consider the impact of the Independent Sentencing Review on victims' families
Credit: Getty
'Insult'
The term 'life sentence' is an insult and often gets reported as 'jailed for life'. But it doesn't mean that at all.
There are lots of groups that meet with MPs and talk to the media about all the reasons why criminals should spend less time in prison.
We aren't against those who can be reformed receiving help, and we recognise that prison isn't always the best place to do that.
But some people cross a line - and when they do, we have to make sure that justice is served.
Some people cross a line - and when they do, we have to make sure that justice is served
Ayse Hussein
I would encourage everyone who agrees with us to contact their MP and make our voices heard.
We are up against it and need your support to make the changes.
We need to ensure all victims get true justice, and that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes that have so brutally damaged our families truly get what they deserve.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Labour's muddled message
Photo by Peter Byrne -. Rachel Reeves is not where she wanted to be. When the Chancellor announced winter fuel payment cuts almost a year ago they were designed to advertise her strength. In order to restore economic stability, ran the narrative, Reeves would venture where previous governments feared to tread (David Cameron repeatedly rejected Tory demands to means-test pensioner benefits). Wonks applauded her taboo-busting. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, whose book, Follow the Money, Reeves is fond of, praised the move as 'sensible'. The aim, No 11 said at the time, was to display discipline not just to the bond market but to voters (who often doubt Labour's economic competence). Yet now, as Reeves' slow-motion U-turn continues, she is advertising her weakness. A government that has held office for less than a year and that has a majority of 165 seats has proved incapable of making a cut worth just 0.05 per cent of GDP (£1.4bn). The new assertion from No 10 is that an improving economy – growth of 0.7 per cent in the first quarter – has made such munificence possible. Keir Starmer doesn't quite channel Ronald Reagan by declaring that it is 'morning again in Britain' but the suggestion is that the country is turning a corner – with four interest rate cuts and three trade deals. The problem is how grim the situation remains. Debt, as Treasury aides continually point out, stands at 95.5 per cent of GDP (0.7 per cent higher than a year ago). Here is why Reeves is imposing real-terms spending cuts on unprotected departments (Angela Rayner and Yvette Cooper, defending housing and the police respectively, have yet to settle with the Chancellor). During a press conference yesterday, Reeves conceded that there were 'good things I've had to say no to'. But as a consequence, Labour critics complain, the government's message is muddled. After entering office it promised short-term pain for long-term gain. 'Things will get worse before they get better,' warned Starmer. 'If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it,' declared Reeves (an inversion of JM Keynes' 'anything we can actually do, we can afford'). Some, including cabinet ministers, were sceptical of this strategy from the start, fearing that it would fail to resonate with an austerity-weary electorate that craved hope, not despair. But it was at least coherent. It pointed towards several tax-raising Budgets and fiscal restraint before a midterm or pre-election loosening. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Yet now the government finds itself in a political no-man's land. It can find the money to U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts, to (most likely) abolish the two-child benefit limit and to keep its election tax pledges. But it cannot find the money to prevent renewed departmental cuts and to commit to spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence (even as Starmer speaks of the UK moving to 'war-fighting readiness'). Voters could be forgiven for being confused, and almost certainly are. Reeves will have to use this autumn's Budget to raise taxes – the only question is by how much. One former aide to Gordon Brown notes the 'madness of spending lots at the start and less at the end of a parliament'. Some in Labour believe Reeves' defining error will prove to be her refusal to increase income tax, VAT or National Insurance on employees ('that's the original sin as far as I'm concerned,' says one source). This has left the government reliant on small but often fraught revenue raisers (such as higher inheritance tax on farmers). But there's a bigger challenge for Reeves: what kind of Chancellor does she ultimately want to be? She could have been the 'Iron Chancellor' – refusing to yield on her tough choices (such as winter fuel cuts). Or she could have been the 'anti-austerity Chancellor' – raising taxes to prevent renewed cuts. Or she could have been the 'growth Chancellor' – taking big risks for big rewards. In practice, Reeves has been all of these at various points without ever settling on an identity. The Chancellor herself defines her approach as 'balanced'. But the risk is that voters simply see it as incoherent. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Can John Healey really afford to go to war?] Related
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Kemi Badenoch to launch review into ECHR exit
Kemi Badenoch is to launch a review into whether the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) - and set out plans to revive a Rwanda-style deportation scheme. In a speech on Friday, the Conservative leader will announce a commission into how lawyers could be prevented from using international legislation to block government decisions on immigration. She will also announce plans to prevent people who arrive by small boat from claiming asylum and deport them to a third country. It is unclear if this would be Rwanda or another location. One of Labour's first acts in government was to scrap the Tories' Rwanda scheme, which would have deported illegal immigrations to the African nation for them to claim asylum there. The plan was held up by a series of legal challenges and ultimately failed to get off the ground before the election, despite around £700m being spent on it, according to the Home Office. The saga sparked a debate within the Tory party about whether the UK would need to leave the ECHR, which was established after the Second World War and sets out the rights and freedoms of people in the 46 countries signed up to it. During the Conservative leadership race, Ms Badenoch said leaving the ECHR wasn't a "silver bullet" and "not even the most radical thing that we probably will have to do" to control immigration. It put her at odds with her rival Robert Jenrick, now the shadow justice secretary, who claimed the Tories would "die" if they did not back exiting the ECHR. 19:32 Ms Badenoch's commission will be chaired by Tory peer and former justice minister Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the shadow attorney general. A Conservative Party aide close to the detail said: "Kemi has worked hard to bring the shadow cabinet together on this very difficult issue. "She has always said she will take her time to build a proper, workable plan to tackle the issue of the courts subverting parliamentary democracy. This commission, led by the brilliant lawyer Lord Wolfson, will make sure we're ready to take the tough decisions." Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls since the general election, has also said he would leave the ECHR. Labour's policy is to remain in it, but to bring forward legislation to "ensure it is the government and parliament that decides who should have the right to remain in the UK". According to the immigration white paper unveiled last month, this would address cases where Article 8 right to family life legal arguments have been used to frustrate deportation, often in the case of foreign criminals. Article 8 was also used in the case of a Palestinian family fleeing Gaza after they applied to enter the UK through a Ukrainian refugee scheme. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday that family migration has become "so complex" that courts are applying "exceptional" human rights guarantees to about a third of cases. She said: "The proportion of decisions being taken as exceptional - often under interpretations around Article 8 - end up being about 30 percent of the cases. That is not exceptional, that is a much broader proportion." However, she rejected calls to disapply the ECHR, saying compliance with international law has helped the government strike deals with France and Germany to help crack down on criminal gangs. She said the government will draw up a "clear framework" that will be "much easier for the courts to interpret and will reflect what the public want to see".
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
English court bars jailed Russian tycoon from appealing in Transneft case
MOSCOW, June 5 (Reuters) - The English Court of Appeal has refused jailed Russian tycoon Ziyavudin Magomedov permission to appeal against a decision that threw out his $14 billion lawsuit against Russian oil pipeline monopoly Transneft and other firms, the company said. Magomedov sued the company and several others at London's High Court, alleging his 2018 arrest on embezzlement charges prompted a Russian state-supported scheme to strip him of his holdings in valuable port operators. In January, Transneft, as well as U.S. private equity firm TPG (TPG.O), opens new tab and other companies, won their bid to block Magomedov's London lawsuit. Transneft said late on Wednesday that the English Court of Appeal denied Magomedov permission to appeal the ruling. "It is clear from the English process that there are massive losses which Mr Magomedov has suffered as a result of wrongdoing against him. He will continue to seek justice and a fair outcome wherever he can," a spokesperson for Magomedov said. Magomedov once controlled an empire ranging from port logistics to oil and gas through his Summa Group conglomerate, which he founded with his brother Magomed. But the brothers were arrested on embezzlement and organised crime charges in one of the most high-profile prosecutions of its kind in years. Magomedov was sentenced to 19 years in jail in 2022. He says the charges against him are unfounded and unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction.
