Combating Common Law Offence Murder
Barrister M. A. Muid Khan :
“It is not merely of some importance, but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done”.
(Lord Chief Justice Hewart in 1924)
Despite having strict punishment for the murders in the UK to ensure “justice seen to be done” yet we are still failing to protect the innocent victims from the hands of murderers and their associates. As a lawyer practising in the United Kingdom, I agree with Lord Chief Justice Hewart when he said “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”
Therefore, in this article an attempt would be made to explain the strict UK law to combat the common law offence murder, penalise the murderers and their associates in the light of a recent unfortunate death of a British Bangladeshi girl, which has not only shocked the whole British Bangladeshi community but also shacked the whole England and Wales. Unfortunately we could not protect the life of this innocent victim from the hands of those people who were supposed to ensure her wellbeing and protect her life.
The main purpose of this article is to create awareness about the law of murder in the UK and bring the criminals before justice to ensure “justice is seen to be done”. Teenage Brit-Bengali girl was beaten to death : In this case study, a British Bangladeshi woman who beat her teenage sister-in-law to death in the family home following a “regime of terror” has been jailed for life by the St Albans Crown Court. This murder case was published on 21st December 2015 in various national newspapers of the England and Wales. In this unfortunate murder case, the victim Shahena Uddin, 19, was a British Bangladeshi girl. During the trial, the Court heard that, prior to her death; she fell unconscious after suffering 54 injuries and was left to die by choking on her own vomit. She was force fed, slapped and beaten for eating too slowly and was often kept from using the toilet or from also drinking water. The court also heard that if she didn’t do something right she could be made to stand bent over the toilet bowl face down looking at the water for ages, for up to six or seven hours.
Miss Uddin was also made to lick the toilet seat, drink the toilet water and eat her own vomit and faeces. The court heard how letters written by Miss Uddin to her killer (Mrs. Sister-in-law) revealed the power she had over her victim and younger girls in the family.
We were shocked to learn that Miss Uddin, prior to her death, had been under the guardianship of Suhail Uddin and his wife since she was 15 and lived in a terraced house in Leavesden Road with all five defendants. Hertfordshire County Council’s children’s services worked with Shahena’s family from 2000 until 2010, after which the courts granted a special guardianship order giving parental responsibility of Shahena to her brother and his wife. Unfortunately, her legal guardians were involved actively in her tragic death.
At the end of the trial, Salma Begum, 32, denied murder but was convicted at St Albans Crown Court. She must serve a minimum of 18 years. The court also jailed four of Miss Uddin’s brothers and a sister. Her eldest brother, 35-year-old Suhail Uddin – Begum’s husband- was acquitted of murder and an alternative charge of manslaughter. He must serve a minimum of 10 years for causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable adult.
Three brothers were also convicted of the same charge. Jhuhal Uddin, 33, was sentenced to nine years; Jewel Uddin, 27, received eight years and Tohel Uddin, 24, must serve six-and-a-half years. In addition, Miss Uddin’s sister, Rehena Uddin, 22, was handed a sentence of five years for the same charge.
All six defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by attempting to impede the police investigation. This unfortunate murder case shocked the whole British Bangladeshi Community. Our heart and soul cried out loudly to learn that Miss Uddin was kept a prisoner in her own home and punished regularly. It is just horrendous to think what she must have undergone that night prior to her death when she was found unconscious after suffering 54 injuries and was left to die by choking on her own vomit.
This ground breaking judgment gives clear signals to all would be murderers in England and Wales that if they are involved with any incidents of murder either directly or indirectly, they would be punished strictly with full force of English Law.
Murder – Definition : There is no legal definition of Murder in any of the statutes of UK. Murder is a common law offence in England and Wales. This offence is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury.
Two elements
For a person to have committed a murder in the eyes of the law they must satisfy all the below requirements: (a) The Actus Reus of murder and (b) Mens Rea of Murder.
First element – Actus Reus of murder
The term “actus reus” is a Latin term for “wrongful act”. For a person to have committed a murder in the eyes of the law they must satisfy all the below requirements: Firstly, the victim of the killing must have been a ‘person in being’ , this means a murder will only occur if a person is unlawfully killed and that the victim is a person who is independent from their mother (not still in the womb). Secondly, the victim must have died, If a person attempts to unlawfully kill a person but they survive the attack that person would most likely be guilty of attempted murder and not actual murder itself. Finally, the victim’s death must have been caused by the act (possible failure to act) of the defendant. If a person dies of a disease, then this is not murder.
For the purpose of legal definition of murder, the Victim must have been a ‘person in being’. A person is classed as a ‘person in being’ and able to be unlawfully killed when the foetus is independent form the mother’s womb and therefore surviving without the mother. There is often confusion as to when a person is classed as a human being during pregnancy.
Furthermore, the Victim must have died for the purpose of legal definition of murder. A person is legally dead once their brain stem is dead. This is what the prosecution will need to prove when they are trying to convict the defendant for the unlawful killing of the victim.
To summaries, the victim must be a person, who has died as a result of the defendants actions.
Second Element – Mens Rea of Murder
For a person to be guilty of murder they must also have the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Law in England and Wales : Murder is an indictable only Offence. The sentence for murder is, in all cases, mandatory and depends upon the age of the offender at the time of the crime or conviction
Section 1(1) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 stipulates that, ‘No person shall suffer death for murder, and a person guilty of murder shall… be sentenced to imprisonment for life’. In other words, there is a mandatory punishment for murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
Even though every person that is found guilty of murder will be given a life sentence, the actual amount of years a life sentence represents will be up to the complete discretion of the court. This period of years is then called the Tariff period of the sentence.
In addition to the 1965 Act, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced and created three broad categories of murder. For each category there is a starting point for the length of the sentence and then the judge in the court has the power to reduce the length of the sentence as they see fit.
Category 1: This is the most serious category of murder; this act of murder is considered the most heinous of crimes. The direction to the court with anyone convicted of a category 1 murder is that a life sentence should mean life. This applies to all those of 21years of age plus. The judges can reduce this providing they have reasonable justifications.
Category 2: This is classed as an intermediate murder with the starting point for sentencing for this type of crime being 30 years in relation to a person over the age of 18years old.
Category 3: This is defined as a residual murder; the starting point for sentencing in this type of murder is 15years for those defendants over the age of 18years old and then a starting point of 12years for those under the age of 18years old.
Murder has been split into these sub categories primarily due to the objective of fair labeling.
Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH): The intention to cause Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) is enough to be convicted of murder. This theory often causes controversy, as a person may be convicted of murder as long as a person unlawfully dies as a result of the defendants actions even if they only intended to cause that person serious harm and not kill them.
In the above case law, the sister-in-law was given life imprisonment for the murder of Miss. Uddin. Her other family members were also given exemplary punishment as they were found guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by attempting to impede the police investigation. Their punishment varied as Murder has been split into the above mentioned three sub categories primarily due to the objective of fair labeling.
As a lawyer of England and Wales, I believe in the British legal systems and am proud of the strict application of Criminal Law to punish murderers and their associates. I firmly believe that the strict punishment given by the Court to the criminals in this case will let the public see “Justice is seen done” I strongly believe that the victim’s family would want the punishment to represent the crime, especially when a loved one has been taken away from them as a result of the murder. The punishments for murder are linked to the severity of the actions by the criminal, the more severe and sadistic the murder the longer the term in prison.
By punishing the offenders involved in the killing of Miss. Uddin, we would not be able bring her life back. However, we can at least ensure that “justice is seen done” by bring the murders and their associates before justice. To combat the Common Law offence of Murder, we must stand together shoulder to shoulder and bring the murders and their associates before justice. Our political leaders, law enforcement agencies, Community Leader and public interest groups should join in this journey to combat and wage a legal war against the murderers and their associates.
(The writer is a Barrister of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, Chartered Legal Executive Lawyer of CILEX and Principal of an International Law Firm based at Marble Arch, London, UK. He can be contacted at [email protected]).
“It is not merely of some importance, but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done”.
(Lord Chief Justice Hewart in 1924)
Despite having strict punishment for the murders in the UK to ensure “justice seen to be done” yet we are still failing to protect the innocent victims from the hands of murderers and their associates. As a lawyer practising in the United Kingdom, I agree with Lord Chief Justice Hewart when he said “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”
Therefore, in this article an attempt would be made to explain the strict UK law to combat the common law offence murder, penalise the murderers and their associates in the light of a recent unfortunate death of a British Bangladeshi girl, which has not only shocked the whole British Bangladeshi community but also shacked the whole England and Wales. Unfortunately we could not protect the life of this innocent victim from the hands of those people who were supposed to ensure her wellbeing and protect her life.
The main purpose of this article is to create awareness about the law of murder in the UK and bring the criminals before justice to ensure “justice is seen to be done”. Teenage Brit-Bengali girl was beaten to death : In this case study, a British Bangladeshi woman who beat her teenage sister-in-law to death in the family home following a “regime of terror” has been jailed for life by the St Albans Crown Court. This murder case was published on 21st December 2015 in various national newspapers of the England and Wales. In this unfortunate murder case, the victim Shahena Uddin, 19, was a British Bangladeshi girl. During the trial, the Court heard that, prior to her death; she fell unconscious after suffering 54 injuries and was left to die by choking on her own vomit. She was force fed, slapped and beaten for eating too slowly and was often kept from using the toilet or from also drinking water. The court also heard that if she didn’t do something right she could be made to stand bent over the toilet bowl face down looking at the water for ages, for up to six or seven hours.
Miss Uddin was also made to lick the toilet seat, drink the toilet water and eat her own vomit and faeces. The court heard how letters written by Miss Uddin to her killer (Mrs. Sister-in-law) revealed the power she had over her victim and younger girls in the family.
We were shocked to learn that Miss Uddin, prior to her death, had been under the guardianship of Suhail Uddin and his wife since she was 15 and lived in a terraced house in Leavesden Road with all five defendants. Hertfordshire County Council’s children’s services worked with Shahena’s family from 2000 until 2010, after which the courts granted a special guardianship order giving parental responsibility of Shahena to her brother and his wife. Unfortunately, her legal guardians were involved actively in her tragic death.
At the end of the trial, Salma Begum, 32, denied murder but was convicted at St Albans Crown Court. She must serve a minimum of 18 years. The court also jailed four of Miss Uddin’s brothers and a sister. Her eldest brother, 35-year-old Suhail Uddin – Begum’s husband- was acquitted of murder and an alternative charge of manslaughter. He must serve a minimum of 10 years for causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable adult.
Three brothers were also convicted of the same charge. Jhuhal Uddin, 33, was sentenced to nine years; Jewel Uddin, 27, received eight years and Tohel Uddin, 24, must serve six-and-a-half years. In addition, Miss Uddin’s sister, Rehena Uddin, 22, was handed a sentence of five years for the same charge.
All six defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by attempting to impede the police investigation. This unfortunate murder case shocked the whole British Bangladeshi Community. Our heart and soul cried out loudly to learn that Miss Uddin was kept a prisoner in her own home and punished regularly. It is just horrendous to think what she must have undergone that night prior to her death when she was found unconscious after suffering 54 injuries and was left to die by choking on her own vomit.
This ground breaking judgment gives clear signals to all would be murderers in England and Wales that if they are involved with any incidents of murder either directly or indirectly, they would be punished strictly with full force of English Law.
Murder – Definition : There is no legal definition of Murder in any of the statutes of UK. Murder is a common law offence in England and Wales. This offence is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury.
Two elements
For a person to have committed a murder in the eyes of the law they must satisfy all the below requirements: (a) The Actus Reus of murder and (b) Mens Rea of Murder.
First element – Actus Reus of murder
The term “actus reus” is a Latin term for “wrongful act”. For a person to have committed a murder in the eyes of the law they must satisfy all the below requirements: Firstly, the victim of the killing must have been a ‘person in being’ , this means a murder will only occur if a person is unlawfully killed and that the victim is a person who is independent from their mother (not still in the womb). Secondly, the victim must have died, If a person attempts to unlawfully kill a person but they survive the attack that person would most likely be guilty of attempted murder and not actual murder itself. Finally, the victim’s death must have been caused by the act (possible failure to act) of the defendant. If a person dies of a disease, then this is not murder.
For the purpose of legal definition of murder, the Victim must have been a ‘person in being’. A person is classed as a ‘person in being’ and able to be unlawfully killed when the foetus is independent form the mother’s womb and therefore surviving without the mother. There is often confusion as to when a person is classed as a human being during pregnancy.
Furthermore, the Victim must have died for the purpose of legal definition of murder. A person is legally dead once their brain stem is dead. This is what the prosecution will need to prove when they are trying to convict the defendant for the unlawful killing of the victim.
To summaries, the victim must be a person, who has died as a result of the defendants actions.
Second Element – Mens Rea of Murder
For a person to be guilty of murder they must also have the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Law in England and Wales : Murder is an indictable only Offence. The sentence for murder is, in all cases, mandatory and depends upon the age of the offender at the time of the crime or conviction
Section 1(1) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 stipulates that, ‘No person shall suffer death for murder, and a person guilty of murder shall… be sentenced to imprisonment for life’. In other words, there is a mandatory punishment for murder, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
Even though every person that is found guilty of murder will be given a life sentence, the actual amount of years a life sentence represents will be up to the complete discretion of the court. This period of years is then called the Tariff period of the sentence.
In addition to the 1965 Act, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced and created three broad categories of murder. For each category there is a starting point for the length of the sentence and then the judge in the court has the power to reduce the length of the sentence as they see fit.
Category 1: This is the most serious category of murder; this act of murder is considered the most heinous of crimes. The direction to the court with anyone convicted of a category 1 murder is that a life sentence should mean life. This applies to all those of 21years of age plus. The judges can reduce this providing they have reasonable justifications.
Category 2: This is classed as an intermediate murder with the starting point for sentencing for this type of crime being 30 years in relation to a person over the age of 18years old.
Category 3: This is defined as a residual murder; the starting point for sentencing in this type of murder is 15years for those defendants over the age of 18years old and then a starting point of 12years for those under the age of 18years old.
Murder has been split into these sub categories primarily due to the objective of fair labeling.
Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH): The intention to cause Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) is enough to be convicted of murder. This theory often causes controversy, as a person may be convicted of murder as long as a person unlawfully dies as a result of the defendants actions even if they only intended to cause that person serious harm and not kill them.
In the above case law, the sister-in-law was given life imprisonment for the murder of Miss. Uddin. Her other family members were also given exemplary punishment as they were found guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by attempting to impede the police investigation. Their punishment varied as Murder has been split into the above mentioned three sub categories primarily due to the objective of fair labeling.
As a lawyer of England and Wales, I believe in the British legal systems and am proud of the strict application of Criminal Law to punish murderers and their associates. I firmly believe that the strict punishment given by the Court to the criminals in this case will let the public see “Justice is seen done” I strongly believe that the victim’s family would want the punishment to represent the crime, especially when a loved one has been taken away from them as a result of the murder. The punishments for murder are linked to the severity of the actions by the criminal, the more severe and sadistic the murder the longer the term in prison.
By punishing the offenders involved in the killing of Miss. Uddin, we would not be able bring her life back. However, we can at least ensure that “justice is seen done” by bring the murders and their associates before justice. To combat the Common Law offence of Murder, we must stand together shoulder to shoulder and bring the murders and their associates before justice. Our political leaders, law enforcement agencies, Community Leader and public interest groups should join in this journey to combat and wage a legal war against the murderers and their associates.
(The writer is a Barrister of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, Chartered Legal Executive Lawyer of CILEX and Principal of an International Law Firm based at Marble Arch, London, UK. He can be contacted at [email protected]).