Would-be assassin dressed in niqab thwarted after gun jams, court told
Aimee Betro, 45, is alleged to have flown from Wisconsin in the US as part of a plot orchestrated by co-conspirators Mohammed Aslam, 59, and Mohammed Nabil Nazir, 31, to attack a rival family on September 7 2019.
Father and son Aslam and Nazir, of Elms Avenue in Derby, were jailed at Birmingham Crown Court in November last year for their part in the plot but Betro flew back to the US days after the bungled assassination attempt and was later extradited to the UK.
Appearing on Monday at the same court as her co-conspirators did, Betro wore pink leggings and her hair in space buns in the dock.
She listened as prosecution counsel Tom Walkling KC told a jury of six men and six women that the attempted assassination was the culmination of a long-running 'vendetta' involving the family of Aslat Mahumad in Birmingham.
Mr Walkling said 'revenge was the motive' after Nazir and Aslam were injured during disorder at Mr Mahumad's clothing boutique in Birmingham in July 2018, which led them to conspire to have someone kill him or a member of his family.
It is believed Mr Mahumad was the target of the attempted shooting on September 7 2019, and Betro lay in wait in a BMW she had bought earlier that day outside his family home in Measham Grove, the court was told.
After about 45 minutes, Mr Mahumad's son Sikander Ali arrived home, and CCTV of the moment the would-be assassin, with face covered, approached him and fired the gun at point-blank range was shown to the jury.
After the gun jams, Mr Ali manages to escape by reversing his SUV out of the road, clipping the car door of the BMW and damaging it so badly it would no longer close.
After the failed assassination attempt, Betro allegedly returned to the scene in a taxi hours later in the early hours of September 8 and fired three shots through the windows of Mr Mahumad's family home, which was empty at the time.
Before she is alleged to have returned to the scene to use the now-working gun to fire bullets into the house, Betro is said to have used a cheap phone she had purchased to send messages to Mr Mahumad including: 'Where are you hiding?', 'stop playing hide and seek, you are lucky it jammed' and asking him to meet her at a nearby Asda.
The damaged Mercedes was later found dumped, by members of Mr Mahumad's family and then the police, and inside was a black glove with Betro's DNA on it, Mr Walkling said.
The court heard Betro, who had flown into the UK on August 22 2019, was back at Manchester Airport by 1.30pm on September 8, and flew back to the US the next day.
She denies conspiracy to murder, possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence and smuggling of ammunition into the UK.
The trial continues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Prince Harry denies giving Prince Andrew bloody nose at family gathering
Prince Harry has denied that he gave Prince Andrew 'a bloody nose' during a fight at a family gathering in 2013. According to an excerpt from a new biography of the disgraced Duke of York, published in the Daily Mail on Saturday, the pair had a heated argument that escalated into a physical altercation. 'Punches were thrown over something Andrew said behind Harry's back', the author Andrew Lownie claimed. The alleged fight began when 'Harry told [his uncle] he was a coward not to say it to his face. Harry got the better of Andrew by all accounts, leaving him with a bloody nose before the fight was broken up.' Lownie's biography, Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, also claimed that Andrew told his nephew marrying Meghan Markle, now the Duchess of Sussex, would 'not last more than a month'. He allegedly 'accused Meghan of being an opportunist and thought she was too old for Harry, adding that his nephew was making the biggest mistake ever,' and told his nephew he had gone 'bonkers', accusing him of not doing 'any due diligence into her past' before they got engaged in 2017. Late on Saturday, a spokesperson for Harry and Meghan said: 'I can confirm Prince Harry and Prince Andrew have never had a physical fight, nor did Prince Andrew ever make the comments he is alleged to have made about the Duchess of Sussex to Prince Harry.' The duke and duchess have also sent a legal letter to the Daily Mail over the publication of what their spokesperson described as 'gross inaccuracies, damaging and defamatory remarks'. The Guardian has approached Buckingham Palace and representatives for the Duke of York for comment. Prince Andrew fell from grace after a disastrous Newsnight interview in 2019 about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the late American financier and convicted sex offender. The duke was stripped of his royal and military titles in 2021. The book claims that Harry and his brother William had 'problematic' relationships with Andrew for years, and that Andrew was also rude about William's wife Catherine, the Princess of Wales. King Charles has allowed his younger brother to stay in the Royal Lodge, a 30-room mansion in Windsor Great Park owned by the crown estate. However, last year the king ended Andrew's allowance, estimated at £1m annually, raising questions about future arrangements. The source quoted in Lownie's biography claims that the Prince of Wales is keen to 'evict' the duke and his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who lives with Andrew though the couple divorced in 1996. According to Entitled's source: '[William] also loathes Sarah … and can't wait for the day when his father throws them both out. If Charles doesn't, I guarantee you the first thing William does when he becomes king is to get them evicted.' Harry broke ties with his family citing the 'toxicity' of royal life and alleged racism towards his wife, moving with his young family to Canada and then the US in 2020. In 2022, he published a memoir, Spare, in which he detailed strains in his relationships with his father and brother. Earlier this year, he told the BBC he had 'forgiven' his family and would 'love a reconciliation'.
Daily Mail
9 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
British travellers have been fined £30million in 18 months for accidentally bringing migrants into the country - with only ONE successfully appealing the punishment
Brits have been fined an astonishing £30million in just a year and a half for accidentally ferrying illegal immigrants across the channel in their vehicles, the Daily Mail can reveal. Travellers have been slapped with thousands of pounds in fines under an obscure and highly controversial scheme designed to crack down on the waves of illegal migrants sneaking into the country. Drivers can be fined up to £10,000 for each illegal migrant found hiding in their vehicle when they return to the UK under the scheme - even if they were unaware of their existence. They can also be handed a £6,000 fine if they vehicle is not 'adequately secured' - even if no migrant is found. The penalties have been harshly criticised for punishing law-abiding citizens who report illegal migrants they discover and open themselves up for bumper fines. While those who don't report the illegal migrants, allowing them to freely leave their vehicles, avoid the prospect of a harsh penalty. The Daily Mail previously revealed that £25,662,299 in fines had been dished out by the home office under the Clandestine Entrant Civil Penalty Scheme between 1 January 2024 and March this year. By the end of June that figure had shot up to £30,983,102, with no further successful penalty appeals, figures obtained from a Freedom of Information request show. That comes despite criticism over the policy penalizing right-minded citizens, with Sir Keir Starmer even forced to intervene in one case after significant public backlash. Although 6,825 fines have been imposed, just one person has been succesful in getting their punishment rescinded since the beginning of last year. There have been 140 unsuccesful appeals. Hauliers have typically been the target of most fines and coach companies can pre-emptively sign up for 'membership' of a civil penalty accreditation scheme which entitles them to a 50 per cent reduction in fines. The fines come as the Government attempts to crack down on illegal immigration, including small boat crossings, but rather than punishing smugglers, it is innocent Brits, wholly unaware of any wrongdoing, who have been penalized under the scheme. One public spirited couple were punished for reporting a stowaway in their van - sparking widespread astonishment and the intervention of the prime minister. Adrian and Joanne Fenton, from Heybridge, Essex, were fined £1,500 by the Home Office in March after reporting a migrant in their motorhome after returning from France. The couple were shocked to find a Sudanese man inside a bag covering a bike rack on their motorhome after a long drive back from Calais and immediately called the police, who took the man away for processing. Yet just over two months later, the pair were issued with the fine for failing to 'check that no clandestine entrant was concealed' in the camper van. Mr Fenton appealed to Border Force by making a 'notice of objection' detailing why he believed the penalty was unfair. While their fine was waived after growing public pressure, their 'liability' remained. A letter from Border Force said: 'The written notice of objection has been carefully considered and the Secretary of State has decided that your liability stands. 'However, after review of the case by a senior officer the level of penalty per clandestine entrant or person concealed being a clandestine entrant has been revised to UK £0. They are not the only innocent couple to unknowingly end up on the wrong side of the law, with a retired ambulance service worker previously warning Brits to be on high alert during Channel crossings. Great-grandfather Peter Hughes, 75, from Droylsden, Tameside, was initially fined a staggering £6,000 after a Sudanese man was found hiding inside his small camping trailer at the Port of Calais in France. After an appeal accompanied by substantial political and media pressure, this sum was eventually reduced to £150 - which he begrudgingly paid despite he and his wife, Anne, knowing nothing about the migrant's existence. Since the beginning of last year, 12,320 fines totalling £14,676,894.84 have been paid, although some of these were imposed previously. Only one appeal of 141 penalties has been successful. That triumphant appeal saw the Home Office rescind a Kent couple's £3,000 fine after they unwittingly drove two Sudanese migrants through Calais in their campervan. Lisa Russell and Geoff Evans were stopped by border officers in France on their return from holiday and were slapped with the penalty despite having 'no idea' a man and teenager were hidden in the bike rack of their van. But their appeal, the only successful one in an 18-month period, saw the Border Force 'exercising general discretion' and remove their penalty. A letter from Border Force said: 'Following a review of the case we have decided to revise the penalty, and conclude that you have demonstrated, to the extent required, that you complied with the regulations. 'The Secretary of State has chosen to exercise general discretion and exceptionally, on this occasion, your penalty has been reduced to £0.' Others have had their fines reduced with one haulage company paying £7,566 after an original £48,000 bill. Around 5,000 'clandestine entrants' were found last year at UK border controls in Calais, Coquelles and Dunkirk, according to a report by the immigration and borders watchdog. Inevitably, others would have managed to evade checks. Meanwhile, more than 25,000 migrants have arrived in the UK via small boats in 2025, a record at this stage of the year. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We are fully committed to stopping people from illegally entering the country and cracking down on people smugglers. 'It's against the law to help someone enter the UK illegally, which is why the Clandestine Entrant Civil Penalty Scheme is there to ensure drivers take every reasonable step to deter illegal migration.'
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Record number of migrants claim asylum after arriving as skilled workers
A record number of migrants are claiming asylum despite arriving in the UK with legal visas, Telegraph analysis of Home Office data shows. Some 4,394 legal migrants who came to the UK in 2022 with visas to work or study had claimed asylum within three years of arriving. That was almost triple the number two years previously when just 1,518 migrants with visas had claimed asylum within three years of arriving, according to the Home Office figures. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is preparing to unveil new restrictions to prevent migrants using study and work visas as a backdoor into Britain's asylum system. Being granted asylum enables migrants to stay in the UK permanently whereas work and study visas are only temporary. Rejected asylum seekers can prolong their stay – sometimes indefinitely – by making repeated appeals to frustrate their deportation. According to the Home Office data, there were some 18,442 migrants living in the UK in 2024 who had switched from work, study or other visas and were either seeking asylum or had been granted refugee status. This was double the number a decade ago and up from a mere 151 in 2006. Of the 18,442, one in five were Pakistani, with 3,982 of them having gone down the asylum route despite arriving with a legal visa at some point. The vast majority – 3,603 – had arrived as students. This was followed by Afghans (2,097), Iranians (1,685), Libyans (1,367) and Bangladeshis (1,463). One of the cases involved a Pakistani man who first arrived on a student visa but was granted refugee status by an immigration tribunal and allowed to stay in the UK despite being convicted of sexually assaulting a woman in 2017. The man, now aged 53 and given anonymity by the judge, arrived in the UK in 2006 as a student. He was initially granted leave to remain only until the end of that year, but he overstayed his visa and lived in the UK illegally for 11 years. Another Pakistani, Nadra Almas, first arrived in the UK in 2004 on a student visa, valid for five months. She was served with a removal notice in 2008 but won a 16-year legal battle to secure refugee status by claiming she was a Christian who would face persecution if deported back to Pakistan. Under Labour's plans to crack down on such abuses of the system, work and study visas will be rejected for individuals who fit the profile of someone who is judged likely to claim asylum and comes from a country with high rates of people switching to claim asylum. There will also be restrictions on asylum claims from individuals switching from work and study visas where conditions in their home country have not materially changed since their arrival. Ms Cooper is also planning to introduce measures to bar migrants who came to the UK on a work or study visa from claiming taxpayer-funded accommodation. Asylum seekers can claim accommodation and other financial support if they are destitute or likely to become destitute. However, work and study visa holders must prove they have sufficient funds to sustain themselves while in the UK. Officials will use the bank statements submitted by visa holders as part of their initial application when deciding whether to grant them asylum accommodation. This will make it significantly harder for asylum seekers to claim free accommodation if they came to the UK on a visa. A Home Office source said: 'We need to impose further restrictions to cut the number of people applying for asylum to extend their stay because their visa has run out.'
