Zara Aleena’s murder was ‘opportunistic’, appeal court told

The murder of Zara Aleena was an “opportunistic” attack, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Jordan McSweeney killed the 35-year-old law graduate as she walked home from a night out in Ilford, east London, early on June 26 2022.

McSweeney, who refused to attend his sentencing hearing last December, was handed a life sentence with a minimum term of 38 years after admitting Ms Aleena’s murder and sexual assault.

At a hearing on Friday, he made a bid to reduce the minimum term of his sentence, appearing for the start of proceedings via videolink from Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire.

The barrister said the sentencing judge, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb, had wrongly factored in the “aggravating features” in the case.

Mr Carter-Stephenson said it was accepted there was a sexual motive to the crime but argued the murder itself was not premeditated.

He told the court: “He was obviously stalking women on that night, following them and looking for an opportunity.

“The attack was an opportunistic act rather than anything that was planned in advance though there was clearly a sexual encounter in mind.

“He planned to look for a sexual encounter, with or without consent.”

Mr Carter-Stephenson later said the “the resistance put up by the victim” caused “the level of aggression to rise” during the assault.

“I don’t mean to put any blame on the victim at all,” he added.

Around 45 minutes after the start of his bid to reduce the minimum term of his life sentence, the hearing was paused following McSweeney’s departure.

An unnamed prison officer, who appeared on the videolink with McSweeney, said: “He’s heard enough and has got everything he requires in his cell.”

Judges were later told Ms Aleena was made unconscious early during the attack.

Mr Carter-Stephenson said: “Given the nature of the attack … the time for the suffering of this victim was limited. That, to some extent, must impact how one views that as an aggravating feature.”

The barrister later said McSweeney had ADHD, which should have been taken into account in sentencing.

“They are wired somewhat differently than most people. They are impulsive… their behaviour is less predictable,” he said.

He told the court McSweeney had spent two hours stalking several women before turning his attention to Ms Aleena.

Mr Glasgow told the court he “wanted to avoid any risk that he could subsequently be identified by any victim”.

The barrister said: “This was not a moment of impulsive aggression. It was a considered act and the product of hours of pursing women along the streets.

“There was nothing that Zara Aleena did that provoked the violence that was given to her.”

Mr Glasgow later told the court there had been no expression of remorse from McSweeney and later noted he had not attended his sentencing and left his appeal hearing.

“This lack of remorse has been borne out for over a year,” the barrister said.

Mr Glasgow added in written submissions: “The submission that the intention to murder Ms Aleena was formed ‘on the spur of the moment’ flies in the face of the applicant’s behaviour preceding the violence.

“The sexual assault of Ms Aleena was the culmination of hours of planning and premeditation.”

He added that McSweeney was “determined to find and attack a vulnerable female and to sexually assault her, and it was inevitable, once he had embarked on that attack, that he would kill his victim”.

The Old Bailey previously heard McSweeney stalked Ms Aleena along Cranbrook Road before grabbing her from behind and dragging her into a driveway.

The attack, caught on grainy CCTV, lasted nine minutes and resulted in 46 separate injuries.

Ms Aleena, who was training to be a solicitor, was found struggling to breathe and later died in hospital.

Mr Glasgow described the attack as “utterly abhorrent” and said the sentencing judge was right to find McSweeney had no mitigation aside from his guilty pleas.

At the hearing before the Lady Chief Justice Lady Carr, Mrs Justice McGowan and Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, Lady Carr said their decision would be given in writing “as soon as possible”.