On October 24, 2025, the Court of Appeal delivered a dramatic ruling that reverberated far beyond the courtroom, reducing the minimum term of TikTok influencer Mahek Bukhari’s life sentence for double murder. The decision, which cut her minimum term from 31 years and eight months to 26 years and 285 days, has reignited debate about youth, responsibility, and the boundaries of justice in high-profile criminal cases.
Bukhari, now 24, was originally convicted in September 2023 for her role in the deaths of Saqib Hussain and Mohammed Hashim Ijazuddin, both 21, following a harrowing high-speed car chase on the A46 in Leicester in February 2022. The case drew national attention not only because of Mahek’s social media fame but also due to the sensational details that emerged during the trial. According to BBC and The Independent, the chain of events began when Mahek’s mother, Ansreen Bukhari, attempted to end a secret affair with Hussain. Hussain, in turn, threatened to release sexually explicit material of Ansreen unless he was paid £3,000—the amount he claimed to have spent on her during their relationship.
Prosecutors said Hussain and Ijazuddin, both from Banbury in Oxfordshire, were “lured” by the Bukharis to a final meeting in a Tesco car park in Hamilton, Leicester, under the pretense of returning the money. Instead, the pair were ambushed. The Bukharis, along with several accomplices, chased Ijazuddin’s Skoda along the A46 in two vehicles, reaching speeds up to 100 mph. The pursuit ended violently when the victims’ car was deliberately rammed off the road. In his final moments, Hussain made a desperate 999 call, telling police, “I’m begging you, I’m gonna die,” as his car was being forced off the highway, as reported by The Independent.
The original trial saw Mahek Bukhari, her mother Ansreen, and Rekan Karwan and Raees Jamal convicted of murder, while Natasha Akhtar, Ameer Jamal, and Sanaf Gulamustafa were found guilty of manslaughter. Sentences were severe: Ansreen Bukhari received at least 26 years and nine months, while the manslaughter convictions ranged from 11 years and eight months to 14 years and nine months.
However, the legal story did not end there. Earlier this month, Mahek Bukhari’s legal team challenged her sentence at the Court of Appeal in London. Her barrister, Christopher Millington KC, argued that the minimum term was “wholly disproportionate” and failed to account for her age and lack of maturity at the time of the offences. He emphasized that Mahek was just 22 when the crimes occurred and contended that youthful immaturity should have influenced the court’s sentencing calculus. “None of this, we submit, was reflected in the fixing of the minimum term as it should have been,” Millington told the court, according to The Independent.
The prosecution, led by Collingwood Thompson KC for the Crown Prosecution Service, acknowledged that Hussain’s blackmail “undoubtedly existed” but maintained that the original sentence, while tough, was not “manifestly excessive.” The appellate judges, however, saw things differently. In their ruling, Lord Justice Warby, Mr Justice Lavender, and Judge Sylvia De Bertodano found that the sentencing judge “did not make enough allowance for the fact that this appellant was an immature 22-year-old at the time of these offences.”
Reading a summary of the decision in court, Lord Justice Warby was clear: “The judge did not make enough allowance for the fact that this appellant [Mahek Bukhari] was an immature 22-year-old at the time of these offences.” He further commented, “Mahek’s response to the blackmail was disproportionate and it was hard to see any real link between any of Saqib’s behaviour and the events on the A46 that led to his death.” Yet, he emphasized that Mahek’s “youth and her acknowledged immaturity were given far too little weight”, and should have “exerted a substantial downward pressure on the minimum term.”
The ripple effect of the ruling extended beyond Mahek Bukhari. The Court of Appeal also reduced sentences for several other defendants. Rekan Karwan and Raees Jamal, convicted of murder, saw their terms adjusted. Meanwhile, Natasha Akhtar, Ameer Jamal, and Sanaf Gulamustafa, all found guilty of manslaughter, had their sentences cut by about two years each. Akhtar’s sentence was lowered to nine years and eight months, Jamal’s to twelve years and eight months, and Gulamustafa’s to twelve years and nine months.
Lord Justice Warby explained the rationale: “It seems to us indisputable that the car chase carried a high risk of death or really serious harm and that this should have been obvious to all those in each car.” However, he continued, “the minor role played by each” of the manslaughter defendants “should have had a powerful downward impact on the sentences.” In his words, “The sentences for all these appellants were manifestly excessive. They could and should have been substantially lower.”
The appeals court’s ruling has sparked considerable discussion among legal experts, victims’ families, and the wider public. Some see it as a necessary correction, ensuring that the justice system recognizes the mitigating effect of youth and immaturity, even in the most serious of crimes. Others worry it sends the wrong message about accountability, particularly given the calculated and violent nature of the offences.
Throughout the proceedings, the human tragedy at the heart of the case has never been far from view. The families of Saqib Hussain and Mohammed Hashim Ijazuddin, both just 21 when their lives were cut short, have repeatedly expressed their grief and frustration. The details of the case—a love affair turned toxic, threats of blackmail, a planned ambush, and a fatal chase—have made it one of the most closely watched trials involving social media personalities in recent British history.
The case has also raised broader questions about the influence of social media fame, the pressures of youth, and the boundaries of criminal justice. Mahek Bukhari’s status as a TikTok influencer added a layer of notoriety, fueling public fascination and debate. Did her online persona play a role in the events? Did it affect the way the case was prosecuted or reported? These questions linger, even as the courts have now rendered their final decision on sentencing.
As for the legal system, the Court of Appeal’s judgment underscores the importance of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, especially when defendants are young adults. The ruling may set a precedent for future cases where immaturity and peer pressure are at play. But for the families of the victims, and for those who followed the case, the pain and loss remain all too real.
With sentences now adjusted, the principal actors in this tragic story face the long years ahead behind bars. The legal chapter may be drawing to a close, but for those involved, the consequences will echo for a lifetime.
