Watford mother involved in stolen machinery operation freed from jail

Watford Observer: Watford mother involved in stolen machinery operation freed from jail Watford mother involved in stolen machinery operation freed from jail

A mother involved in a family-run scheme to ship stolen heavy machinery to Dubai, has been freed from jail after top judges agreed to show "mercy" for the sake of her children.

Najia Sayed and her partner, Sayed Mahjub, both of Lower High Street, Watford, each played a role in the plot which also involved three members of her family.

The 30-year-old was jailed for two-and-a-half years, alongside her partner, who received a four-year term, at Southwark Crown Court in September last year, after both admitted conspiracy to disguise or transfer criminal property.

But the mother-of-two was today freed by judges, who said the court was able to show compassion so that the couple's children were not deprived of both parents.

The court heard the plot was "organised, sophisticated and lucrative" and involved the shipping of heavy plant - including Caterpillar and JCB machinery - which had been stolen from building sites in the UK, to Dubai.

Six containers were discovered, ready for shipment abroad, and the machinery inside was worth around £450,000.

Investigations revealed about £700,000 had gone through the conspirators' accounts.

The court heard Najia's brothers, Krezhal and Behroz Sayed, were the at the top of the organisation, while Mahjub was just below them and oversaw the day-to-day dealings.

Najia's role was to transfer cash made from the illicit operation and she allowed money to be put into her own account, but she played no other part in the business.

Krezhal and Behroz were jailed after admitting the same charge, while a third member of the family, Ali Sayed, was also put behind bars after being found guilty.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:02pm Thu 20 Mar 14

angryangryangry says...

Shouldnt have done the crime at all let alone that they had kids to think about if they got caught! I know it isn't the children's fault but the parents should have been more responsible!
Shouldnt have done the crime at all let alone that they had kids to think about if they got caught! I know it isn't the children's fault but the parents should have been more responsible! angryangryangry
  • Score: 10

3:05pm Thu 20 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

This sends out the wrong message.

Nobody makes someone commit a premeditated crime. Thieves and chancers know the consequences if they are caught and those consequences extend to their family.

This weak minded judgment by the court just sets a precedent for criminals to use their children as sheilds against the legal process, and believe me, they'll use it. These criminal types are inherently selfish or they wouldn't put their own family at risk for the sake of ill-gotten gains. So this act won't register amongst the criminal fraternity as mercy, they will see it as a defence opportunity should they get caught.

You also have to question whether putting a criminal mother back in sole charge of her children is in their interest. Social Services have removed children from a family home for far less, so why put the children at risk?

In any case, whilst it may be unfair for children to have to suffer the consequences of parental guilt, their welfare cannot take precedent over protection of the public from criminals or other families will suffer. The prevention of the creation of new victims is what justice should be all about but clearly isn't.
This sends out the wrong message. Nobody makes someone commit a premeditated crime. Thieves and chancers know the consequences if they are caught and those consequences extend to their family. This weak minded judgment by the court just sets a precedent for criminals to use their children as sheilds against the legal process, and believe me, they'll use it. These criminal types are inherently selfish or they wouldn't put their own family at risk for the sake of ill-gotten gains. So this act won't register amongst the criminal fraternity as mercy, they will see it as a defence opportunity should they get caught. You also have to question whether putting a criminal mother back in sole charge of her children is in their interest. Social Services have removed children from a family home for far less, so why put the children at risk? In any case, whilst it may be unfair for children to have to suffer the consequences of parental guilt, their welfare cannot take precedent over protection of the public from criminals or other families will suffer. The prevention of the creation of new victims is what justice should be all about but clearly isn't. D_Penn
  • Score: 6

9:36am Fri 21 Mar 14

garston tony says...

As much as I dont want innocent children to suffer I have to agree that i'm not easy with this idea that if you've got children you should somehow be treated more leniently by the system.

Hows about the father does his time and when released the mother then does hers?
As much as I dont want innocent children to suffer I have to agree that i'm not easy with this idea that if you've got children you should somehow be treated more leniently by the system. Hows about the father does his time and when released the mother then does hers? garston tony
  • Score: 4

9:44am Fri 21 Mar 14

LSC says...

I have to agree with the above. Knowingly putting your children at risk of having no parental contact for the sake of greed counts as neglect or even abuse in my book, so I'd have made her sentence even harsher because of that!
I have to agree with the above. Knowingly putting your children at risk of having no parental contact for the sake of greed counts as neglect or even abuse in my book, so I'd have made her sentence even harsher because of that! LSC
  • Score: 2

11:09am Fri 21 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

garston tony wrote:
As much as I dont want innocent children to suffer I have to agree that i'm not easy with this idea that if you've got children you should somehow be treated more leniently by the system. Hows about the father does his time and when released the mother then does hers?
A very interesting idea that.

Rather than a suspended sentence, a deferred one.

One problem I can see is that it would allow the person to commit more crime while they were out. To my mind, the chief function of prison is not punishment, deterrent or rehabilitation but crime prevention. We already know from statistics that recidivism is rife, so the only 100% guarantee the public ever have that they will not become a future victim of a proven criminal is that time when they are behind bars.

There is also the counter-issue that if a person has become a good citizen and behaved themselves that suddenly locking them up after a four year delay would make me feel a little uneasy as then the benefit is only deterrence. There is also an increased likelihood that careful plans to disappear abroad would be made by many wanting to avoid prison.

Those points aside, providing the parent can be shown to not be a dangerous influence, the idea suggested has merit because children can be so vulnerable. Ignoring this factor can store up problems for society in the next generation.

So is there a way of incorporating this idea into the justice system where violence is not a part of the crime? Very tricky question. It just shows how getting the justice system to work effectively and fairly can be really challenging.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: As much as I dont want innocent children to suffer I have to agree that i'm not easy with this idea that if you've got children you should somehow be treated more leniently by the system. Hows about the father does his time and when released the mother then does hers?[/p][/quote]A very interesting idea that. Rather than a suspended sentence, a deferred one. One problem I can see is that it would allow the person to commit more crime while they were out. To my mind, the chief function of prison is not punishment, deterrent or rehabilitation but crime prevention. We already know from statistics that recidivism is rife, so the only 100% guarantee the public ever have that they will not become a future victim of a proven criminal is that time when they are behind bars. There is also the counter-issue that if a person has become a good citizen and behaved themselves that suddenly locking them up after a four year delay would make me feel a little uneasy as then the benefit is only deterrence. There is also an increased likelihood that careful plans to disappear abroad would be made by many wanting to avoid prison. Those points aside, providing the parent can be shown to not be a dangerous influence, the idea suggested has merit because children can be so vulnerable. Ignoring this factor can store up problems for society in the next generation. So is there a way of incorporating this idea into the justice system where violence is not a part of the crime? Very tricky question. It just shows how getting the justice system to work effectively and fairly can be really challenging. D_Penn
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree