Amir Shafique: Five handed lengthy prison sentences for Aylesbury murder

Mr Shafique, aged 22 at the time of his death, passed away after being fatally stabbed by Charlie Irwin on October 28, 2020.

Irwin was one of five men convicted in connection with the death of Mr Shafique, who died after a fight with the convicted men on Lembrook Walk.

READ MORE: Every word said as judge hands sentences to five who killed Amir Shafique

Following a sentencing hearing that last more than five hours, the five men were handed prison sentences totalling 67 years.

• Charlie Irwin, aged 23, of Radnor End, Aylesbury, was handed a life sentence to serve a minimum of 21 years after being convicted of murder.
• Nasim Khan, aged 24, of Ruskin Way, Aylesbury, was handed a life sentence to serve a minimum of 20 years after being convicted of murder.
• Mohammed Wasim, aged 20, of Thrasher Road, Aylesbury, was handed a 10 year prison sentence for manslaughter
• Ishmael Shah, aged 24, of Cotterills Lane, Birmingham, was handed a nine year prison sentence for manslaughter.
• Bertie Turvey, aged 22, of Henry Road, Aylesbury, was handed a 7 year prison sentence for manslaughter.

Reading Crown Court heard how Shafique’s death came from an organised fight after the convicted men accused him of ‘snitching’.

Miranda Moore QC, prosecuting, said: "This group of young men had elected to meet with the deceased and his friends to sort out an argument which had escalated arising out of Mr Khan and Mr Wasim a 'grass', as he had made a witness statement relating to witness intimidation in a totally unrelated matter.

"Amir Shafique told his brother he was hoping to sort it all out that night.

"The incident took place over two or three minutes from the cars pulling in to Khan and Irwin being at the area of the grass where Amir was stabbed to death.”

The prosecution argued the men had brought knives and baseball bats with them to the fight.

However, His Honour Judge Paul Dugdale said he could not sentence the men on this basis.

Reading a tribute from Amir Shafique’s mother, Ms Moore said: “Since my son's death my whole family has been in extreme shock. Devastated.

“Our lives have changed forever.

“I miss Amir very dearly, especially on certain occasions. He will never be part of those moments ever again.”

Hossein Zahir QC, defending for Khan, told the court that it was Shafique who started a series of phone calls that led to the fight.

Diana Ellis, defending for Irwin, claimed her client was acting in self-defence as Amir Shafique was firing at the car he was in with a BB gun.

Explaining why Irwin stabbed Shafique more than once, she said the defendant suffers from PTSD.

She explained: “His reactions to the situation he found himself in would be different and less capable of being controlled for him than somebody who hadn't seen the history he had seen.

“Once he felt under threat, his response was to act that way. Not that he was intending to kill at that time, he was intending to protect himself.”

Lisa Wilding, defending for Mohammed Wasim, said the plan was for a ‘punch-up with baseball bats’ and denied her client intended to seriously harm Amir Shafique.

'He is deeply sorry for the death of Mr Shafique. The events of that night were not anticipated.

'He wishes more than anything that night had ended differently’, Ms Wilding said.

Michael Borrelli, defending for Ishamel Shah, said: ''There is a very good side to this man.

'Although he knows he will be imprisoned, he has resolved to come out a better person.’

Andrew Hall QC said his client, Bertie Turvey, was scarcely involved in the incident: 'Within seconds of arriving in the car park, he was screaming at the driver to get out of there as the vehicle was under attack.

'You are sentencing someone who not only did not intend to cause serious injury, he is someone who did not injure anyone.

'The fair conclusion is that he was not present at or near the scene where the man was stabbed and he had no knowledge of those events until afterwards.

'It's difficult to perceive of anyone less involved in this killing. It was someone persuaded to go along to provide support.'

His Honour Judge Paul Dugdale retired for an hour before returning with his sentencing remarks.

He said: ‘From every angle, this is an utterly tragic case, where a short moment of wholly unavoidable madness has had a devastating effect on the lives of so many people.

'All twelve of the people involved that night knew each other and were friends or acquaintances.

'Khan and Shafique had a disagreement as to whether Shafique had assisted police with an investigation.

'It was agreed this pathetic and small-minded disagreement could be resolved was through a fight.

'This was wholly unavoidable.

'Amir Shafique paid for it with his life and sadly you will all pay for it with years in prison.'

Speaking after the sentencing, Senior Investigating Officer Detective Chief Inspector Andy Shearwood of Thames Valley Police’s Major Crime Unit, said: “This tragic case is a classic example of a joint enterprise attack.

“The original altercation arose from previous arguments, and although not all of the defendants physically attacked Amir, five of them were proven to have been complicit in Amir’s death.

“Amir had fallen out with one of the defendants, Nasim Khan, and had agreed to meet him to sort out these differences.

“These differences were relatively low level disagreements, and the tragic outcome highlights the very significant risks associated with carrying weapons, including knives.

“Amir was not trusting that Khan would play fair, and so he arrived with three others to the pre-arranged meeting.

“However, he could have had no idea of the violence that would meet him that night, and whatever the grievances were, the way his life was ended was callous.

“Khan had rounded up others to go with him, and they were armed with an array of weapons including knives, baseball bats and a can of CS spray, and there was no doubt that his group were ready and willing to fight and injure anyone in Amir’s group.

“This whole incident took place in a public place in full view of members of the public, bringing enormous shock to Amir’s family and friends.

“Amir suffered terrible injuries that night, and none of those convicted have ever taken any responsibility for their actions.

“Throughout the investigation, they claimed self-defence as a rationale for their actions, but the jury did not believe that the level of violence used that night was necessary or justified in any way.

“If you are part of a group that plans an attack or executes an attack which involves chasing a victim down, intending that he should be assaulted either by you, or one of your group, then you are encouraging that action, and as such you are accountable for these actions.

“Irwin and Khan will now spend a very significant spell in prison as a result of their actions that night, while Wasim, Shah and Turvey, although acquitted of murder, will also have a lengthy period of imprisonment to reflect on their actions.

“At the conclusion of this investigation and trial, I know that Amir’s family and friends will now have to look to the future without Amir in their lives.

“I would like to pass on my sincere condolences to all that knew and loved Amir for their loss. They have shown tremendous resolve, patience and dignity throughout the course of this investigation. It is something that no family should ever have to endure.

“The fact that Amir’s killers have been brought to justice and will now be in prison for many years to come, will, I hope, serve as some solace for them all.

“I have a very clear message to anybody who is considering carrying or using a knife.

“Tackling knife crime in the Thames Valley is one of our top priorities, and we will relentlessly pursue those who seek to bring such harm to our communities.

“There is no excuse to carry a knife in self-defence. If you’re carrying a knife, it’s for one reason, and one reason alone.

“That is to cause someone serious injury or kill.

“To those who choose to ignore this message and feel it is acceptable to do so, you will feel the full force of the law upon you.

“We work in partnership with the Thames Valley Violence Reduction Unit, and other partners, including our local communities, and we are dedicated in our resolve to tackle violent crime through prevention, intervention and enforcement.”