Latest news with #crowncourt
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Woman disguised in niqab guilty of conspiracy to murder in Birmingham
A would-be killer who tried to shoot a rival at point-blank range while disguised in a niqab has been found guilty of conspiracy to murder. Aimee Betro, 45, who is originally from the US, flew to the UK as part of a revenge plot orchestrated by father and son co-conspirators Mohammed Aslam, 59, and Mohammed Nabil Nazir, 31, to attack a family they had been feuding with. Jurors at Birmingham crown court deliberated for 21 hours before finding Betro guilty on the charges of conspiracy to murder, possessing a self-loading pistol with intent to cause fear of violence, and illegally importing ammunition. The jury, who had been given a majority direction by Judge Drew, found Betro guilty by 11-1 verdicts on the conspiracy to murder and firearm charges, and by a unanimous verdict on the ammunition charge. Betro, from Wisconsin, did not react and merely stared towards the jury bench as the verdicts were read out. She remained emotionless when escorted back to her cell. The court heard how she had tried to shoot Sikander Ali outside his home in Yardley, Birmingham, on the evening of 7 September 2019, but her handgun jammed. Betro told the court that she had met Nazir on a dating app and had travelled to the UK twice before the attempted killing to spend time with him, including between December 2018 and January 2019. She told jurors that the third trip was to celebrate her birthday and attend a boat party. CCTV footage presented to the court showed Betro standing outside Ali's suburban home shortly before 8pm on 7 September. As Ali exited his car, Betro was shown to pull out a handgun but failed to fire any rounds, with Ali jumping back into his car and driving away. Jurors heard that Betro and her co-conspirators targeted the victim after Aslam and Nazir were injured during a physical altercation in a shop owned by Ali's father, Aslat Mahumad, which led the pair to resolve to have him or a member of his family killed as retribution. After the failed murder attempt, the court heard that Betro texted Ali's father messages such as 'Where are you hiding?' and 'Stop playing hide and seek, you are lucky it jammed.' The court was told that hours later, Betro returned to Ali's home in a taxi and fired three rounds into his now empty house, before leaving again. The defence barrister, Paul Lewis KC, said he was not asking for pre-sentence reports as they would not assist the court. Drew told the court: 'I suspect Miss Betro would like to know the outcome of this case and there is nothing worse than sitting waiting.' Betro, who fled to the US while Aslam and Nazir were tried in the same court, spent several years in Armenia after the attempted murder, before being arrested last summer and extradited to the UK in January this year. John Sheehan, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service's extradition unit that returned Betro to the UK, called the operation a 'complex investigation and extradition process'. He said he hoped the conviction would send a clear message that the CPS would 'pursue criminals who attempt to evade justice, and make sure that they are brought to a courtroom to be held accountable for their actions'. Betro is due to be sentenced on Thursday 21 August.
The Sun
a day ago
- The Sun
Illegal immigrant stabbed fellow asylum hotel resident 15 times in frenzied attack
AN illegal immigrant stabbed a fellow asylum hotel resident 15 times in a frenzied attack. Iranian Syed Barzegar, 33, went berserk after the victim banged on his door following a drawn-out row between the pair. He charged at him in the corridor and repeatedly stabbed him, with seven blows to his back. Footage showed the victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, stumbling around in a bloodied T-shirt, leaving red footprints on the floor at the Holiday Inn Express in Oxford. He needed emergency surgery after the attack on January 30. Barzegar, who claimed asylum in 2023, tried to conceal the weapon by handing it to a pal, Oxford crown court was told. He was convicted of grievous bodily harm and possession of a bladed article last week and was jailed for three years yesterday. Judge Maria Lamb KC said the victim ignited the situation but nothing can justify the attack. Barzegar's initial asylum claim was rejected by the Home Office but he launched an appeal. Ms Lamb added: ' Whether the deportation provisions apply is not a matter for me.' A co-defendant, Behroz Danandeh, was cleared of conspiring to hide the knife. 1
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on restricting trial by jury: the ugly face of justice tailored to tight budgets
Only a tiny minority of criminal cases in England and Wales are decided by a jury – as few as 1%, once guilty pleas and judge-directed acquittals are taken into account. There are democracies where jury trial is rarer still. That is relevant context for the recommendation, published on Wednesday in an independent review of the criminal courts, that more cases be heard by magistrates. There are also good reasons why the right to be judged by one's peers is deemed a foundational principle of justice and an insurance against prejudice and capricious power. This, too, is relevant context. Sir Brian Leveson, a former judge, recognises the sensitivity around any restriction on jury trial. But he weighs it against 'the real risk of total system collapse in the near future'. He argues that the backlog of unheard crown court cases – currently about 77,000 – betrays the victims of crime, leaves witnesses and defendants in limbo and corrodes faith in the whole apparatus of justice. To get the system back on track, Sir Brian makes 45 recommendations, covering a range of sentencing and divisions of labour between police, magistrates and crown courts. The most controversial measure, if adopted by the government, is sure to be ending the right to be tried in front of a jury for offences that carry a maximum sentence of two years or fewer. The report also proposes that judges alone should decide complex fraud cases that notoriously tax jurors' time and capacity to absorb highly technical testimony. Sir Brian is candid in acknowledging that the changes are not ideal. They express an invidious choice between unpalatable compromise and an intolerable status quo, tending towards calamity. He makes a case for reform irrespective of the wider fiscal constraints facing the government. But he notes also that the terms of reference for his inquiry sought recommendations that 'take account of the likely operational and financial context at the time that they may be considered and implemented'. In other words, it is a question of finding the least worst solution when justice must be tailored to a tight budget. This is a crisis of long gestation. The justice department was among those 'unprotected' portfolios that bore a disproportionate burden of austerity when George Osborne was chancellor. The court system is also still struggling to recover from extreme disruption during the Covid pandemic. Labour has taken steps to ease the case backlog, funding more sitting days and appointing judges. But the rate of improvement is insufficient given the scale of the problem, hence the review and the drastic measures it proposes. Whether curtailment of jury trial is a price worth paying to avert the worst-case scenario is a nasty question that only arises because adequately funded reform is not on the table. This has become a painfully familiar political conundrum for Labour. The government was elected to fix a badly broken state, but on a manifesto that precluded most of the Treasury revenue-raising measures that might expedite tangible change. As a result 'reform' has become a euphemism for shrinking services and withdrawing entitlements. When the time comes, ministers might feel compelled by fiscal circumstance to accept Sir Brian's recommendations. If so, they will struggle to make a compelling case for a policy that so obviously compromises judicial principle for want of a long-term, better-funded plan.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How much can you claim on expenses from jury duty?
Trials by jury should be reduced and more cases resolved by judges only to ease the huge backlog of crown court hearings, a major new review has recommended. Former senior judge Sir Brian Leveson, chairman of the independent review of the criminal courts, said that 'fundamental' reforms to the court system are needed to 'reduce the risk of total system collapse'. It comes as the crown court backlog in England and Wales passed 75,000 cases for the first time, rising to 76,957 at the end of March. Leveson's recommendations are hoped to save some 9,000 sitting days in crown courts each year by diverting cases to magistrates' courts or to the proposed Crown Court Bench Division for trials to be heard by judges. Juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases, and defendants would receive a 40% discount on their sentence if they plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. Defendants in cases for offences including assault of an emergency worker, stalking and possessing an indecent photograph of a child would also no longer have the right to choose a jury trial. A new Crown Court Bench Division, made up of two magistrates and a judge, would have powers to deal with all either way offences such as fraud, child abduction, sexual assault and violent disorder. A judge would then decide whether a defendant's case would be sent to the new court, or to the crown court with a jury. Reacting to the recommendations, Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds told Times Radio on Wednesday that jury trials are 'always going to be an important part of the criminal justice system'. Chairman of the Commons' justice committee, Andy Slaughter, however warned it needs to be considered 'very carefully' before altering the system. The Labour MP said: 'Juries are central to our constitutional right to a fair trial. We should think very carefully before altering a system that has served us well for centuries. But that does not mean the ambit of the jury system can never change.' Jurors are able to claim expenses to offset any financial impacts of carrying out jury service. For the first 10 days, you can claim up to £64.95 per day for loss of earnings if you're in court for more than four hours, or £32.47 for less. After 10 days, this increases to £129.91 per day for over four hours, or £64.95 for less. Travel expenses, such as standard-class public transport fares or 31.4p per mile for driving, are covered – but you will need to provide receipts. A daily food and drink allowance of up to £5.71 is available if you're at court for over five hours. Childcare or care for dependants can also be claimed, but total claims, including loss of earnings, are capped at the daily maximum. Self-employed jurors need to provide evidence like tax returns. Claims must be submitted with receipts, typically within 14 days of service completion, using forms provided by the court. Payments are usually processed within 7-10 days. If you receive benefits you should show your jury summons to your benefit office or work coach as soon as you get it. Financial support and benefits, such as universal credit, will continue to be be paid for the first eight weeks. After that, the court will give you a loss of earnings form to give to your benefit office or work coach. While jury duty is mandatory, some people are exempt due to specific circumstances or jobs. In England and Wales, exemptions may be granted for serious illness or disability, full-time caregiving for someone with a serious illness or disability, or being a new parent unable to serve within the next 12 months. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, practising registered nurses and midwives can be excused if they provide evidence. Those currently on bail, with prior prison sentences of five years or more, or in certain professions like law enforcement may be ineligible. Jury duty can be deferred once within a 12-month period for reasons like booked holidays, exams, or significant business impact, but you must provide alternative dates. Failure to attend without a valid exemption can result in a £1,000 fine.
Telegraph
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Shoplifters and drug dealers to avoid court
Thousands more thieves, shoplifters and drug offenders will avoid court under new plans to ease a record backlogs in cases. A government review is expected to recommend that 'out of court resolutions' are used more widely for lower-tier offenders including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences. The disposals can include cautions, fixed penalty notices, rehabilitation courses, verbal warnings or apologising to victims. The move is part of a package of measures to help reduce record delays that mean some victims will have to wait until 2029 to see their perpetrators in court. Sir Brian Leveson, leading the government review, warned that criminal justice was at 'risk of collapse'. He said defendants were exploiting the delays by pleading not guilty in the hope their victims would give up or forget vital evidence. The former Appeal Court judge will propose increasing the 'discount' for an early guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender's sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their time, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence. The right of defendants to a jury trial will be scaled back to speed up justice and clear a backlog of 77,000 cases waiting to be heard in crown courts. As The Telegraph previously revealed, Sir Brian will propose a new 'intermediate court', with a judge and two magistrates hearing cases that would have previously gone before a jury in a crown court. He will recommend complex cases that might last a year or more, such as fraud and cybercrime, should be considered only by a judge. Magistrates will be given the power to hear offences where previously a defendant could have elected to be tried by a jury. At present, magistrates can only try offences with a maximum sentence of one year, but this could be increased to two. Ministers are expected to agree which offences would be heard in which type of court later this year, but Sir Brian is understood to have argued for a radical approach. Even defendants charged with assault causing actual bodily harm would be denied a jury trial. Thousands of suspects would no longer have the right to put their case to a jury of their peers when tried for offences such as assault of a police officer while resisting arrest, racially aggravated criminal damage, dangerous driving or possessing a class C drug like cannabis. Sir Brian will also recommend that defendants should have the right to ask for a judge-only trial without a jury. In the US and Canada defendants have the right to refuse a jury, as they do in New Zealand, where the right is limited to less serious offences that carry a maximum sentences of less than 14 years. Government sources insisted the plans were only recommendations. 'We will consider all his recommendations over summer and won't respond until autumn,' said a source.
