A TikTok influencer sentenced to 31 years for a deadly high-speed chase killing has had her murder sentence branded “wholly disproportionate” at the Court of Appeal.
Mahek Bukhari’s Car Chase Horror
Mahek Bukhari, 24, was handed a minimum 31-year sentence in September 2023 after being convicted of murdering her mother’s lover, Saqib Hussain, and his friend Mohammed Hashim Ijazuddin during a violent car chase in February 2022.
Her mother Ansreen was jailed for at least 26 years. Two others were also convicted of murder, while three more faced manslaughter charges.
Affair Turns Fatal Over £3,000 Dispute
The shocking killings unfolded after Ansreen’s attempts to end her affair with Hussain. The court heard Hussain threatened to leak explicit videos of Ansreen unless she paid him £3,000 he claimed to have spent on her.
Prosecutors revealed the Bukharis lured Hussain and Ijazuddin to a Tesco car park in Leicester for a supposed money return. Instead, the pair were ambushed and chased along the busy A46 motorway, with vehicles deliberately ramming their car off the road at speeds up to 100mph.
Legal Battle: Sentence ‘Too Harsh’
“This was heat of the moment, not cold-blooded murder,” argued Christopher Millington KC, representing Mahek. “There was no plan to kill, only the risk of violence.”
He also highlighted Hussain’s “controlling behaviour” and blackmail threats towards Ansreen just hours before the attack, which were ignored in sentencing.
“Mahek’s youth and lack of maturity mean her sentence should be reduced. The current term is wholly disproportionate,” Millington insisted.
The court was told Mahek and her mother even considered going to the police but chose not to, leading to fatal consequences.
Crown: Tough But Fair Sentencing
Prosecutors acknowledged Hussain’s blackmail but maintained the sentence was justified. “If they’d gone to the police, none of this would have happened,” said Collingwood Thompson KC.
Judge Timothy Spencer KC described Mahek’s social media fame as “tawdry,” blaming her “utter self-obsession” and indifference to the harm caused.
The final judgment is expected in writing from the Court of Appeal’s panel soon.
