How England Failed Sara Sharif

By Abigail Anthony

Thursday, January 09, 2025

 

Beside the dead body of a ten-year-old girl with 71 fresh injuries and 25 separate bone fractures was a flimsy piece of torn notebook paper that said, “Love you Sara,” written in capital letters and the inconsistent handwriting of a kindergartener. It was a confession from her murderer — her father. “It’s me Urfan Sharif who killed my daughter by beating,” he wrote, continuing that “I swear to God that my intention was not to kill her, but I lost it.”

 

The police non-emergency phone number received a call from Pakistan at 2:47 a.m. on August 10, 2023, two days after Sara was murdered. Urfan Sharif began the eight-minute-and-34-second call by telling the operator to write down his address. He admitted, “I killed my daughter” and instructed the police to visit “No. 6 Hammond Road,” where keys were left under the door mat. “I’m a cruel father,” he stated, then pledged: “I promise I’ll come back . . . I’ll face the death sentence.”

 

On December 17, 2024, Urfan was not handed the death penalty. The judge convicted Urfan — along with Sara’s stepmother, Beinash Batool — of murder, and convicted Sara’s uncle Faisal Malik for causing or allowing the death of a child. Urfan was sentenced to prison for life with a minimum term of 40 years, Beinash was sentenced to prison for life with a minimum term of 33 years, and Faisal was given a 16-year sentence. Somewhat unusually, the judge took great pains when explaining the ruling, noting that parole is not necessarily granted upon serving the minimum term. “Nothing that I can do will provide recompense for the loss of this young child’s life,” the judge wrote regretfully, as if he wishes harsher punishment were possible in the post-death-penalty country.

 

And so three people are imprisoned in relation to the murder of Sara. But far more people are guilty. The story of Sara’s life should be grounds to sue England itself for its repeated failures to protect her. Indeed, it seems that if a single person had acted responsibly, then Sara might be alive today.

 

Let’s start at the beginning.

 

Urfan Sharif moved from Pakistan to the United Kingdom in 2003 on a student visa to study business management. At a Surrey registry office in 2009, Urfan married Olga Domin, a Polish woman he had known for less than a year. The marriage conveniently occurred just months before his visa was set to expire — and under the 2004 “Free Movement Directive,” her European Union citizenship allowed him to remain in the United Kingdom. During the murder trial, Urfan denied pursuing a sham marriage for an EU passport, telling the jurors “I wanted to settle down with a Polish girl.” Despite his claims, Urfan clearly showed little respect for his union with Olga: While legally married to her, he had an Islamic marriage in 2011 with his cousin.

 

Still, it is true that Urfan really wanted to “settle down with a Polish girl,” albeit for dubious motives. Urfan exhibited a pattern: He targeted them through online dating and had at least three romantic relationships — and in court, he admitted that he had been arrested with respect to allegations brought by all three of them. In 2007, Urfan was arrested for false imprisonment, theft, criminal damage, and common assault after an 18-year-old Polish woman brought forth allegations. (He allegedly began dating her when she was about 15.) In 2009, another Polish girlfriend reported him for holding her against her will for five days. In 2010, just within a year of marrying Olga, he was arrested for assaulting her. Urfan asserted in court that, on each occasion, he had told the police that the women were lying. Eventually, in 2010, he was convicted of something, namely stealing £1,700 while working at McDonald’s.

 

Olga had a son from a previous relationship, then had two children with Urfan: a son in 2010, and Sara in 2013. Olga has painted a grim picture of her marriage, accusing Urfan of locking her in a room, strangling her with a belt, and trying to set her on fire. Indeed, the authorities knew that the relationship was volatile: Police were involved four times between May 2010 and August 2012, and the county’s children’s services were in contact as early as 2010.

 

The local authority initiated “care proceedings” (essentially a child-welfare case) in 2013, just before Sara was born. A case summary — dated prior to Sara’s birth — stated that “the children have been exposed to domestic violence” and “there have also been allegations that the children have been subject to physical abuse by both parents.” When Sara was born on January 11, she was immediately subject to a child-protection plan by social services. But less than a week later, a hearing concluded the following: “The advantages of the children remaining at home should [be] weighed against the potential harm to the children of removal, particularly to Sara as a newborn child, before we have a full assessment and understanding of these children and their parents ability to meet their individual needs.” Later that year, Urfan and Olga signed an agreement with social workers to undergo a ten-week parenting course and to not “use any physical chastisement on any of the children.”

 

Things didn’t improve. At a hearing for an emergency-protection order in 2014, it was reported that one of the three children (whose name is unknown) had said, “I don’t want to go home, mummy hits,” and he had told a sibling that “the man is going to hit us now” and “stop or the man will hit you.” The three children were placed into foster care, and Sara in particular was observed exhibiting unusual behavior, such as “stand[ing] facing a wall.” A social worker noted that “There would be significant concerns if the children returned to the independent care of Mr Sharif given the history of allegations of physical abuse of the children and domestic abuse with Mr Sharif as the perpetrator.”

 

Regardless, Sara and a sibling were returned to Olga and Urfan, while the third child remained in foster care. As the proceedings continued in 2015, Urfan agreed to undergo a domestic-violence course. Sara was again put into foster care, then reunited with Olga in a women’s refuge. While in foster care, it was noticed that Sara and a sibling had scars resembling cigarette burns, although Olga and Urfan claimed these were chicken pox scars. In November 2015, a family court concluded that the three children should live with Olga and have supervised visits with their father. Olga and Urfan finalized their divorce in 2017.

 

When Olga was in Poland visiting relatives in 2014, Urfan began an affair with Beinash Batool, and the two lived together in Surrey by early 2015. Urfan had only supervised contact with Sara and her older brother until June 2017; after that, the two children would remain with him on weekends and holidays. In March 2019, Sara alleged that Olga had abused her, so Urfan and Beinash applied for Sara and her biological sibling to live with them; a judge agreed and granted custody to Urfan and Beinash. By then, Urfan and Beinash had three children of their own. They had a fourth in 2022. Olga slowly lost contact with the two children that she had with Urfan; Beinash had told Olga that the children didn’t want to see her.

 

And so Sara resided in a £500,000 home with five siblings, Urfan, Beinash, and Urfan’s younger brother Faisal Malik, who had moved from Pakistan.

 

That’s just the beginning.

 

Evidence for what the murder trial judge called a “campaign of abuse against Sara” dates as early as 2019, when she began residing with Urfan and Beinash. At the time, Beinash had electronically messaged her sister to say that Urfan had beaten Sara, sometimes including photos of the bruises. “This is how bad he is beating her. . .” Beinash wrote alongside images, adding “I feel really sorry for her,” and “he beat the crap out of her.” (The sister said to follow the Quran and avoid the authorities.) From those messages, the judge inferred that Urfan “regularly inflicted serious violence” on Sara. In response to the beatings, Sara began soiling herself and vomiting — reactions that prompted even more beatings from Urfan. Eventually, Sara was compelled to wear the hijab to hide her wounds and injuries.

 

People had suspicions over the years. One neighbor of the family told jurors that she often overheard screaming, slamming doors, and swear words from the Sharif residence. (She had considered making a formal report but did not.) Another neighbor similarly said in court heard screaming and swear words, as well as smacking-like sounds. (That neighbor “spoke to people” and was told to ignore it.) And another neighbor heard disturbing screams just a few days before Sara’s death. (That person “wondered” about doing something, but then didn’t hear “any other noise” and therefore “did not take it any further.”)

 

In 2022, a teacher noticed a bruise near Sara’s eye and reported it to the school. In 2023, a teacher noticed bruises on Sara’s face, and the school contacted social services. But the investigation lasted six days and concluded in March that there was no need for intervention. Later that month, the school made an internal report that Beinash had called children “motherf***er, sister f***er, b****, and whore” at the playground. The next month, Urfan withdrew Sara from school permanently and claimed to homeschool her.

 

Sara was not seen outside again. She was only heard screaming from the house.

 

The medical evidence from postmortem evaluations provides a disturbing account of the abuse Sara endured in her last few months. She died with 71 separate fresh injuries that must have been sustained just days before she was murdered. Some marks suggested that she had been tied up, and others show she had been beaten with a long object. (Urfan admitted to beating her with a cricket bat and metal pole.) Sara also had 25 separate fractures, all dated two to eight weeks prior to her death. Sara had two open burn wounds on her buttocks, both in a shape that matched an iron in the house. Wounds on her ankles suggest that, while tied up, Sara was either wrapped around a hot object or splashed with boiling water. Soiled diapers were found, in part because she was not permitted to use the bathroom when tied up; her ankle wounds were exacerbated by contact with urine and feces, which suggests that she was tied so tightly that her feet touched her bottom. Six bite marks were on her body. Plastic bags had been put over Sara’s head and secured with masking tape.

 

A blow to her head caused a brain injury. On August 8, 2023, Beinash noticed Sara’s decline and instructed Urfan to return home. He drove, bought some vapes, and arrived to find Sara limp in Beinash’s arms. Urfan grabbed a metal pole and beat Sara, assuming that she was feigning illness. Sara died.

 

It was a rainy day, about 60 degrees outside. Within an hour of killing her, the family was speaking to a travel agent and arranging flights to Pakistan. Sara was washed, changed, and laid in bed. Attempts were made to destroy or hide evidence, such as the removing the doorbell camera. The three adults and remaining five children all flew to Pakistan the next day. Urfan called the police two days after killing Sara and admitted to murder. They all went into hiding as the Pakistani authorities conducted a search. The three adults — unaccompanied by any of the surviving children — returned voluntarily to the United Kingdom on September 13, 2023, at the request of Urfan’s family; Urfan’s relatives had been detained in Pakistan, presumably as a pressure tactic to find the culprits. The trials for Urfan, Beinash, and Faisal lasted ten weeks and concluded in December.

 

In a British prison, two inmates slashed Urfan Sharif’s throat with a jagged tuna-can lid, reportedly because they were disgusted by his crimes. He received medical treatment and survived. In eastern Poland, five Catholic prayer candles adorn a small marble grave that says “Sleep, angel” above the name Sara Domin, not Sara Sharif.

 

The story of the dead little girl who lived in such darkness has shone a bright light on devastating problems in England: the accommodating immigration system that destabilizes the country when importing those without Western values, the pursuit of phony marriages to maintain residence, the ineptitude of law enforcement even when faced with a repeat offender, the negligence of child-care services, and irresponsible judges in the family courts. When sentencing the three adults, the judge noted that the case raises questions about “whether more could have been done to prevent the tragic consequences.” The correct answer is a firm yes, but the judge appropriately notes, “It is not my role to express an opinion on this matter.”

 

Rather oddly, the judge immediately permits himself to rant about the problem of . . . homeschooling. “This case brings into sharp relief the dangers of unsupervised homeschooling of vulnerable children,” he wrote. But why? After all, teachers had noticed Sara’s bruises, but the authorities did nothing. And the authorities were aware of domestic violence in Urfan and Olga’s household before Sara was born.

 

The pursuit of justice should warrant consequences for the state agents whose inaction facilitated Sara’s horrific childhood and ultimate death. But the appalling government misconduct did not end when she died. The Crown Prosecution Service issued a statement at the conclusion of the murder trial that said “This has been an incredibly complex and distressing case, and it is thanks to the tireless work of the prosecution team, Surrey Police, international partners, and the CPS International Unit that we were able to secure justice for Sara.” In other words, the government thanked the same Surrey Police who had been in contact with the Sharif family for “some years.”

 

Not only is England commending the authorities who failed Sara, it is actively protecting them. Judge Williams of the High Court family division was willing to release documents from the earlier cases involving the Sharif family — but he enforced redactions and granted anonymity to judges and social workers, particularly those involved in the custody battle that awarded Sara and her sibling to Urfan and Beinash. When explaining this ruling, Williams complained about subpar journalists and stated that “experience regrettably shows that some reporting is better than others. . . . Many will indeed report matters responsibly, fairly and accurately. Some will not.” Williams further justified his decision on the grounds that, following the media stories, people might say the wrong things: “Once the media applicants have published the information it is available to anyone to do with it as they wish and in an age of disinformation and anti-fact the court must have an eye to what onward use may be made of the information.” According to Williams, the possibility that people will say the wrong things warrants granting anonymity: “In 2024 the placing of a name in the public domain opens the door to both (a) the generation on social media of the equivalent of a lynch mob albeit with limited ability to tie their victim to the nearest tree but (b) the identification of the home address of the named person, their family, and their movements.”

 

So, now what? It seems that the only people who will be held responsible for Sara’s murder are already behind bars. To prevent a similar tragedy, one might expect a sweeping legislative package that reforms policies on immigration, visas, domestic violence, child custody, social services, and law enforcement. What has actually happened? A bill was introduced to place restrictions on . . . homeschooling.