A MARRIED Pakistani couple who almost decapitated a man in front of a 12-year-old girl have had their minimum sentences cut by appeal judges who said cultural issues were not properly considered by the trial judge.
Fazli Rahim, 42, and 31-year-old Saima Gul, were jailed for life and told to serve at least 23 years for murdering Mohammed Noor at a flat in Pollok, Glasgow, in May 2012 in what the judge Michael O'Grady, QC, described as one of the most appalling crimes he had encountered.
The brutal attack was witnessed by a 12-year-old girl who told how the two attackers sent her to the kitchen of the flat for a knife, then ordered her to get a bigger blade. She was also made to bring a hammer used in the incident.
It was claimed in court that Gul, who was 16 when she entered into an arranged marriage in Pakistan, was forced to live with the murder victim Mohammed Noor in a "dishonourable way" which led to her being abused after her husband Rahim had entered a bigamous marriage.
At the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, Lord Drummond Young ruled the sentences were too severe, saying one of the relevant factors was that not enough weight was given to "cultural factors" in the case.
Rahim had his sentence cut by four years and can now apply for parole after 19 years and Gul had her sentence slashed by six years and can apply after 17 years.
The court heard Rahim moved from the North West Frontier Province to Glasgow nine years after the marriage with Gul, which was arranged by their parents.
Gul was pregnant when she remained with Rahim's family, while he used false documents to travel to the UK to look for work.
By the time she joined her husband in 2008, Rahim had fathered four children after a bigamous marriage to a Scottish woman.
A ruling reveals it was submitted on Gul's behalf that "cultural differences existed between the UK and the society from which both appellants and the deceased came" and she was required to live with the deceased "in a dishonourable way".
Gul, who had a child by Mr Noor, had claimed he had raped and abused her and that he beat her with his hands and with wire.
Her representative said she broke with cultural norms to go to a police station the day before the murder to complain that Mr Noor had been harassing her and was keeping her child prisoner in his flat.
Officers escorted her home and told Mr Noor to stay away from her. The judge said he was "extremely sceptical" about the claim this had led to the fatal confrontation.
Lord Drummond Young said: "We accept the appellants came from a society which in many respects is very different culturally from the United Kingdom.
"The history of the relationship of the two appellants and of their relationship with the deceased is highly unusual, but the trial judge did not attach any significant weight to this. This may have been because of the absence of clarity about what actually happened at the time of the killing. Nevertheless, we think some weight should be given to cultural factors."
He said he believed the judge also attached "too much significance" to the absence of emotion of the couple during the trial.
Lord Drummond Young said that, while allegations Gul had been abused physically and sexually by the deceased were "very unsatisfactory", the fact she became pregnant by Mr Noor "lends some some support to this suggestion".
The appeal court judge also said the aggravating features of hamesucken - a premeditated home break-in with a view to violence - and the vulnerability of the deceased were absent.
A jury previously heard 22 days of evidence and speeches, then rejected Rahim's claim he was merely a spectator while Gul carried out the fatal attack.
They also rejected Gul's story that Mr Noor had tried to rape her and her husband had intervened.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article