There has been a lot of media attention following the unfortunate death of Aya Hachem in 2020. 

A full trial took place in 2021 with harsh sentences being passed down. Seven men of different ethnicities were sentenced for murder ranging from 27 years to 34 years. 

However, one lady who had the same level of involvement as the men was convicted for manslaughter and sentenced to 15 years, of which she must serve a minimum of two thirds. 

Why? Is it because she’s female? Is it because she’s white? One can only speculate how the jury came to that decision. 

Fast forward to January 2022, shocking arrests occurred of Suhayl Suleman and Louis Otway who were charged with the murder of Aya Hachem and the attempted murder of Pachah Khan. This was despite Suhayl and Louis being cleared of any charges following a short arrest in 2020. 

Both pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced in October 2022. 

The full trial has taken place and the jury were sent out and told to reach a verdict. 

Shockingly it was reported that one juror left their dedicated room and refused to give a verdict. Why?

The juror reported that the other jurors were racist and refused to reach a decision. A letter from the brave juror was read out in court which stated that the jury had reached a verdict from day one based on the colour of the defendants skin - one being black and being a drug dealer - the other referred to as the brown one who drives a £140k car. 

What relevance for owning an expensive car have on a murder trial? Absolutely nothing. Just because someone is a drug dealer does this automatically mean that person is a murderer? Absolutely not. 

The jury reached a verdict purely based on the defendants skin colour. Not the evidence presented in court. How is this a fair trial?

The Lancashire telegraph continued to give live updates and reported the above. The Judge queried this and the juror confirmed the same. A decision was then to be made as to how the case should proceed. The judge, Mr Justice Goose, informed the jury members that they were being discharged. Nothing about the fact that they had remarked racist comments . The jury members were only told they must not discuss what has been heard during proceedings. The live feed was then removed immediately an hour after the case had finished for the day.

Again, the question is why? Because the men on trial were brown and black. 

Despite the fact that this is an open court, anyone can attend court and it was reported online, why is the truth being concealed? 

A re trial has been ordered for February 2023 with a new jury. Can any judge say with certainty that this trial will be fair. What’s going to be different in the re trial? Are the jury going to make a decision based on the evidence presented in court or based on their skin colour again? 

Legal representatives for the defendants attempted to transfer the case to another court due to the media attention and to allow the defendants a fair trail but the judge refused on the basis that it’s a known case in Lancashire. How will this allow the defendants a fair trail? It seems once again the trial will be biased from the start. In the words of the judge ‘the case is known in Lancashire’. It seems the judge is choosing not to allow a fair trial and continue to try the defendants in a court where the jury will already be familiar to the case and have preconceived before the trial even starts. 

The new jury will already make assumptions like the previous jury at the outset without even listening to the facts of the case and the evidence presented. How will this be a fair trial?

The pressing question is then how many people are being convicted based purely on their skin colour?

Human rights allow a person the right to a fair trail who is charged with a crime. 

On the above basis how will Suhayl Suleman and Louis Otway have a fair trial? It is proven during the course of their trial that it was not fair and they were deemed guilty by the jurors purely based on their skin colour. 

The judge refuses to transfer the case to a different court. Why?

The defendants are not going to have a fair trial in February 2023. Their human rights are being infringed. 

The case should get dismissed on the basis of an unfair and biased trial, which will lead to an unsafe conviction.