26 26 13 February 2021 | The Guardian Weekend13 February 2021 | The Guardian Weekend
Mahil was asked to attend Lewisham police station immediately, where
she had a fi ve-minute conversation with an offi cer. She tried to summarise her
friendship with Singh, the sexual assault, the fact she had invited him over
to confront him. She told them Singh had come to her home and left. But she
left out two crucial facts: that Shoker and Peters were also there, and that
she had seen him punched in the face. At 9.40pm on 26 February, Mahil was
arrested on suspicion of murder. She spent the night in the station cell. Why
didn’t she tell the police the full story? “I panicked,” Mahil says again. She
looks drained. “I can’t explain it more than that.”
On the evening of 27 February, she was formally interviewed under caution
in the presence of a duty solicitor. This time, Mahil says, she told them
everything she knew. But the police did not accept her version of events, and
nor did the Crown Prosecution Service – she had omitted key details in her
fi rst interview and lied to Singh’s sister, why would she be telling the truth now?
At 6.50am on 28 February, Mahil was charged with murder. “I had to go to
a magistrate s court where they said, ‘She’s remanded to custody.’ And I sat in
the cell thinking, I don’t know what that means. I thought it was like custody
of children – something that protected you. I didn’t realise I was in prison .”
Shoker and Peters were also charged with murder. Mahil discovered
the chronology of what had happened on the night of Singh’s death from
a television in the induction room at Holloway prison. A news report said that
Singh had been savagely beaten, wrapped in a duvet, taken from her house and
put in the boot of the Mercedes. His hands had been tied with a satnav cable.
The autopsy later suggested he was unconscious when the car was set on fi re.
The trial began at the Old Bailey in London on 5 December 2011. Mahil,
Shoker and Peters all pleaded not guilty to murder. On the stand, Shoker said
things had got out of hand; the plan had been to take Singh back to London,
where Sonny could talk to him. The defence for both men pointed out
that, if the plan was to kill Singh, it was extraordinary that they had turned
up without a weapon or means of restraint. When cross-examined by the
defence, Shoker acknowledged that Mahil had been told Singh would simply
be given a tough talking to ; if the men intended any violence, she did not. But
the prosecution argued that Shoker was infatuated with Mahil: of course he
would protect her in this way.
What of Sonny, whose idea the meeting
was, according to Mahil and Shoker?
Interviewed under police caution on 6
April 2011 , he said he had driven Shoker
and Peters to Charlton station on 25
February, but didn’t know they were
going to Brighton. He also admitted
meeting them later that night , at Shoker’s
home in Shooter’s Hill, Greenwich,
where Sonny’s VW Golf was being kept
as a favour. “I got a call from Ravi at 1am :
he thought someone had been messing
around with the cars. I was not pleased,
but drove over.” Sonny said he checked
the cars and left. Shoker and Peters had
arrived in Singh’s Mercedes; at this point, he would still have been alive.
Sonny told police he had never met Mahil or her brother. He was not called
as a witness for the prosecution or defence , though the jury asked twice when
he would give evidence; it was not clear to lawyers on either side that he would
further their case. The Guardian contacted his brother and local temple, who
said they would pass on our request for a comment. Sonny did not respond.
On the stand, Peters and Shoker turned against each other. Shoker blamed
Peters for the violence , saying he had bought the petrol, poured it over Singh
and the car, and set fi re to it ; Peters claimed he had simply done the driving
and not witnessed the attack. He said he had been hired by Sonny to break
into the Mercedes, and that when he had earlier tried to withdraw from this
plan , Sonny had threatened him. Peters also claimed it was Sonny who had
said they had to “get rid of the car”.
Anything Mahil said in court seemed to work against her. She called Shoker
her “gangsta” friend, and the jury took it literally. She told the court she had
agreed Singh would be taught a “ serious lesson”, which the prosecution
argued was an admission she had consented to violence. But, she says, she
meant just that: a lesson from Sonny about Sikh values. When giving evidence,
Mahil repeated that she never thought there would be violence. Not even
a slap, she was asked by the prosecution. Well, maybe a slap, she conceded.
Why did she say that? “They kept asking: ‘Surely you must have thought
this or that would happen?’ And you’re thinking retrospectively, well, what’s
the worst I think could have happened? The reality was that I didn’t consider
there would be any violence. I was expecting a religious, mentor-like man.
I thought they were good guys.”
Her defence knew it was impossible to prove Mahil expected no violence,
but argued all the circumstances pointed to that. If she had been masterminding
a violent attack, would she have told her housemates , and invited the victim
at a time when they would all be in? Would she have suggested he turn back?
The court heard outstanding character references for Mahil, in which
a recurrent theme was her naivety. A former teacher said: “If Mundill has
a fault, it could be said she is naive, believing all the people she comes into
contact with are like her.” Her friend Sarah said: “I don’t think she thought
anything bad happened in the world. ” Her housemate, B, described Mahil as
“something of an agony aunt. She used to spend hours talking to people about
their problems, and do anything she could to help.” But it was her second
statement to the police that left a lasting impression. She said she remembered
Mundil saying she wanted Singh dead. Under cross-examination, B admitted
she may have been confused about her second statement.
After nearly three months, the trial ended on 24 February 2012. Shoker was
sentenced to 22 years for murder , Peters to 12 years for manslaughter, and
Mahil to six years for GBH with intent. The prosecution conceded that she
could not have foreseen that Singh would be set alight.
Mahil’s sentence was controversial. There were protests outside the Old
Bailey by people who thought she should have been convicted of murder ,
while women’s groups claimed the assault should have been taken into account
and lowered her sentence. But Mahil says she has never been interested in
that defence, because it concurs with the prosecution’s narrative.
In sentencing Mahil, Judge Paul Worsley said: “He [Singh] was lured by
you, Mundill, to your student house in Brighton where you intended, as
the jury have found, that he suff er really serious harm. You had collected
Ravi and Darren from the railway station for that very purpose.” Mahil was
“manipulative, vengeful and deceitful”, Worsley said, adding: “You have
sacrifi ced your outstanding character and future career.” The trial was widely
reported as the “honeytrap murder”, with Shoker and Peters the “hitmen”
and Mahil the ruthless fi gure at the heart of a “twisted love triangle”.Even in jail, Mahil says she expected to be told it was all a mistake. But her
appeal was rejected. There had been nothing wrong with the trial process, and
there was no new evidence ; it was simply her word against the prosecution.
At the appeal, the evidence cited to uphold Mahil’s conviction appeared
damning. It was stated that Mahil had told police that Shoker and Peters
had “pulled out sheets from a bag and put on black fi ngerless gloves” before
Singh arrived. Mahil says this is not quite right ; what she meant got lost
in translation. “Earlier in the evening, I noticed Darren putting on black
fi ngerless gloves , the kind you’d wear to keep your hands warm. I didn’t
think anything of it. As for the sheet, when I was talking to Live later, I said
I thought I’d glimpsed a sheet in my bedroom when I opened the door, but
I was never sure. We’re talking a couple of seconds before I ran out.”
The appeal judges also said she had discouraged her housemates from
investigating the struggle in her bedroom. Mahil disputes this: she says she
could barely get any words out.
In jail, at HMPs Holloway and Send, Mahil was a model prisoner. She took
courses, qualifi ed as a personal trainer and worked in the prison gym. She
also became politicised about the justice system. “I thought, ‘Why would
[then justice secretary] Mr Grayling ban books? Books are good. Why are
they turning all the single cells into bunk beds? Oh, it’s because they don’tWhen Mahil
told police what
had happened,
she left out
crucial facts.
Why? ‘I panicked’