Grooming gang who plied young teenage girl with alcohol and drugs then raped her have 'pathetically short sentences' increased
Ibrar Hussain, now 47, and brothers Imtiaz and Fayaz Ahmed, 62 and 65, were convicted in the 1990s of sexually abusing the teenager.
A court heard the trio plied the victim - aged 13 or 14 - with drugs and alcohol over the course of three years in Keighley, West Yorkshire.
Both Ahmed brothers fled during their trial and are believed to still be on the run abroad, while Hussain was the only one to hear his sentence in the dock.
They were the last of eight defendants convicted of sexually abusing two teenage girls.
Hussain was jailed for six and a half years for two counts of rapes - with the sentences to be served concurrently.
The brothers were sentenced in their absence, with Fayaz being given seven-and-a-half years while Imtiaz was given nine years in his absence for one count of rape.
But on Tuesday the Court of Appeal increased Hussain's sentence for two counts of rape to 10 years, Imtiaz Ahmed's to 11 years for one count of rape, and Fayaz Ahmed's was increased to 10 years for two counts of rape.
Their sentences had been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Solicitor General under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme.
Five of the group did not have their sentences reviewed as their cases did not meet the ULS criteria.
Michael Quinn, from the Crown Prosecution Service, previously said the men's actions were 'wicked, vile and sordid'.
Robbie Moore, Conservative MP for Keighley and Ilkley, had written to the attorney general's office to complain about the groomers' initial sentences.
He said: 'They received pathetically short sentences, which have finally been deemed weak enough to be challenged under the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) Scheme.
'These men committed horrific crimes: rape, exploitation, and the sustained abuse of two 13 and 16 year old girls in our town.'
Today Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, welcomed the increase in the sentences, writing on X: 'Yesterday the Court of Appeal found that these sentences were more than unduly lenient - they were significantly so.'
He added: 'It is deeply troubling that these three offenders were part of a wider group tried for similar abuse. But the statutory window for referring the other five sentences under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme has now expired.
'That means justice delayed has become justice denied.'
Adding that the case should 'mark a turning point', Mr Jenrick said 'serious concerns must now be raised about the consistency and adequacy of sentencing across the rape gangs trials as a whole'.
During the hearing, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, with Mrs Justice Eady and Mr Justice Cavanagh, heard the vulnerable victim met the men in the early 1990s, and was supplied with money, drugs and alcohol in return for sex.
She was taken to various places where she was raped over several years, including by Hussain and the Ahmed brothers.
Ibrar Hussain and Fayaz Ahmed were 18 and 17 respectively when they carried out their offences, and Imtiaz Ahmed was in his 30s.
Police launched an investigation into the gang after the girl came forward as an adult to report the abuse. During the probe a second victim came forward to report one of the men had raped her as well.
Bradford Crown Court heard how one of the girls was 'extremely vulnerable' and 'isolated' when she was targeted.
The woman, who is now in her 40s, said had she had been listened to sooner, then 'maybe, just maybe, my life could have been different'.
It was heard how the victim's mother reported her missing to police multiple times but nothing was done.
She said in an impact statement the abuse she went through as a child, means now as an adult, she is still 'trying to fix the trauma that other people have inflicted on me'.
Judge Ahmed Nadim criticised police and social services during the earlier trial, saying they were 'either ill-equipped to properly understand what was happening' and 'uninterested in addressing their needs'.
The victim described how she was 'plied with drugs and alcohol to numb the abuse' and explained how in one instance there were men 'queuing up' in the corridor of a flat to have sex with her.
She said she was 'groomed' and then 'passed on to other men' and became addicted to alcohol and drugs, using them as a 'coping mechanism'.
The court heard: 'Nothing in this world can ever fix the damage I have been through - because of them I lost my identity.'
Solicitor General Lucy Rigby said: 'This case involved the shocking and hideous abuse of a vulnerable teenager by these three sexual predators.
'I referred these sentences to the Court of Appeal because in my view they were unduly lenient.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
How many asylum seekers are in UK hotels and why are they being housed there?
The subject of asylum seekers being housed in hotels has come into sharp focus after a High Court ruling. On Tuesday, Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary injunction blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in the Essex town. Here, the PA news agency takes a look at the latest overall data. – How many asylum seekers are in hotels across the UK? The most recent Home Office data showed there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079. New figures – published among the usual quarterly immigration data release – are expected on Thursday, showing numbers in hotels at the end of June. Figures for hotels published by the Home Office date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023 when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. – How many hotels are in use for asylum seekers? It is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210. – Why are asylum seekers being housed in hotels? Asylum seekers and their families can be housed in temporary accommodation, known as contingency accommodation, if they are awaiting assessment of their claim or have had a claim approved and there is not enough longer-term accommodation available. The Home Office provides accommodation to asylum seekers who have no other way of supporting themselves on a 'no choice' basis, so they cannot choose where they live. When there is not enough housing, the Home Office can move people to accommodation such as hotels and large sites, like former military bases. In May, the National Audit Office said those temporarily living in hotels accounted for 35% of all people in asylum accommodation. – Is this likely to be a permanent arrangement? Labour has pledged to end the 'costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers in this Parliament' – which would be 2029, if not earlier. Campaigners and charities have long argued that hotels are not suitable environments to house asylum seekers. The Refugee Council said they 'cost the taxpayer billions, trap people in limbo and are flashpoints in communities' and urged the Government to 'partner with local councils to provide safe, cost-effective accommodation within communities'. – What is the Government saying since the legal ruling? Ministers are 'looking at a range of different contingency options' following Tuesday's ruling, according to security minister Dan Jarvis In the immediate aftermath of the judgment, border security minister Dame Angela Eagle repeated criticism of the previous Conservative government, saying Labour had 'inherited a broken asylum system'. She said the Government would 'continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns' around asylum hotels. – What options does the Home Office have now? Last month, amid protests outside the Bell Hotel and more migrants crossing the Channel, an extra 400 spaces were being prepared to house male asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield in Essex. The former military site, which has a usual capacity of 800 beds, is expected to house more adult men on a short-term basis. The Labour Government scrapped the large site of the Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland, Dorset, earlier this year, while Napier Barracks in Folkestone, Kent, is also due to end housing asylum seekers and be returned to the Ministry of Defence in September. – Why were there protests outside the Bell Hotel? The hotel in Epping has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl – something he has denied and he is due to stand trial later in August. After the High Court's ruling, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage wrote in the Telegraph calling for Epping protests to inspire further action wherever there are concerns about the 'threat posed by young undocumented males' living in hotels. But on Tuesday more than 100 women's organisations wrote to ministers warning that vital conversations about violence against women and girls are being 'hijacked by an anti-migrant agenda' that fuels divisions and harms survivors. The joint statement, including from Rape Crisis England & Wales and Refuge, said: 'We have been alarmed in recent weeks by an increase in unfounded claims made by people in power, and repeated in the media, that hold particular groups as primarily responsible for sexual violence. 'This not only undermines genuine concerns about women's safety, but also reinforces the damaging myth that the greatest risk of gender-based violence comes from strangers.'
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
UK's military chief in Pentagon talks after Donald Trump pledges a NATO-style security guarantee for Ukraine - but British peacekeeping troops 'won't be sent to the frontline'
The UK's top military chief is set to hold meetings in Washington DC today following Donald Trump 's promise of security guarantees for Ukraine. Sir Tony Radakin, the chief of the defence staff, is expected to attend talks at the Pentagon to thrash out how Ukraine would be defended from future attack in the event of a peace deal with Russia. It follows crunch talks at the White House on Monday between the US President and European leaders, including Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky. After the emergency summit in the Oval Office - held in the wake of Mr Trump's talks with Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week - Sir Keir said there had been a 'common understanding' about a NATO-style security guarantee for Ukraine. The PM added this was an 'Article 5-like guarantee', which could mirror the 'collective defence' clause of the NATO treaty that states that an attack against one NATO ally is considered an attack against all NATO allies. Sir Keir has pledged to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine as part of efforts by the so-called 'coalition of the willing' of Ukrainian allies to help ensure a potential peace agreement with Russia holds. But, during the Pentagon talks on Wednesday between military chiefs from the coalition of the willing and their American counterparts, Sir Tony is expected to state that UK peacekeeping troops would not be on the frontline with Russia. US President Donald Trump told Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday that America would help guarantee Ukraine's security in a deal with Russia A British official told The Guardian: 'Wednesday is a really important moment. 'Nothing happens in Washington without the President giving the green light, so Trump giving his support to security guarantees on Monday kickstarted a lot of activity.' Another said Sir Tony would echo pledges made by Defence Secretary John Healey, who recently said Britain was willing to deploy troops to Ukraine 'to secure the safe skies, safe seas and to build the strength of the Ukrainian forces'. They added that ministers envisaged this as meaning logistical and training support rather than sending battalions of frontline troops who could end up in combat. Security minister Dan Jarvis this morning said the flurry of diplomatic talks in recent days had 'brought the prospect of peace much closer' in Ukraine. Speaking on Times Radio, he said: 'We've always strongly supported Ukraine's integration, both in terms of their potential desire to be members of the European Union and membership of NATO. 'We don't think that any limitation should be placed on Ukraine's armed forces or on its co-operation with third countries, and Russia certainly shouldn't be able to have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to the European Union or NATO.' Mr Jarvis added: 'I think it is important to make the point that very significant progress has been made. 'I think the Alaska summit and the talks in Washington over the previous days have brought the prospect of peace much closer than they had been previously.' But, despite the growing hopes that the three year-long conflict in Ukraine could soon be brought to an end, former Russian prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov warned that Mr Putin is 'absolutely not' ready for peace. He told Times Radio that the Russian leader was 'absolutely not' serious about striking a peace deal, despite Mr Trump's suggestion trilateral meeting - potentially in Budapest - between himself, Mr Putin and Mr Zelensky. 'He doesn't want to have the high-level meeting. He doesn't want to meet to sit down with Zelensky,' Mr Kasyanov, a leading Putin critic, said. 'It will be some of a humiliating event for him. That's why he will be avoiding it. You're correct that the ball is on Putin's court, but he will continue dragging out time, continue his offensive operation, believing that he will win the war of attrition. 'He simply managed to avoid imposing just tough sanctions as a result of Alaska meeting.'
The Sun
3 minutes ago
- The Sun
All the new tax raids Rachel Reeves is planning on YOUR cash to fill £50bn blackhole – how to protect yourself
RACHEL Reeves is under pressure to fill a £50billion blackhole with an all-new tax raid in the Autumn Budget. Experts have suggested a raft of tax changes could be announced in the speech - but how could they affect you? And what can YOU do now to protect your finances. We explain. 2 The Chancellor is under increasing pressure after slow economic growth, U-turns on spending and a weak jobs market have all pushed the government finances further into the red, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research has warned. Among the ideas on the table are changes to stamp duty, capital gains tax and council tax. Labour has already pledged not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT in its manifesto, which means it is considering other options. Of course, the full details of the Budget will remain under wraps until the day it is unveiled. But here we explain what could be on the cards and what it might mean for you. Inheritance tax Reeves is said to be eyeing up inheritance tax changes as part of plans to fix the nation's finances. Some of the options on the table are stopping parents from making unlimited tax-free gifts to kids by capping the value of gifts that someone can pass on to loved ones. Currently, you can give away unlimited amounts of money and assets to friends or family members without paying inheritance tax, as long as you do so seven years before you die. If you give money away and then die within seven years then the amount of tax you pay is charged at a tapered rate. Capping the amount relatives can give to their loved ones could raise millions of pounds for the Treasury. 2 The tax raised a record £8.2billion last year alone. Experts have warned that if the measure was brought in it could cause 'a fundamental change to the way families pass on wealth". Rachael Griffin, tax and financial planning expert at Quilter warned the change 'could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members." Stamp duty It has also been suggested this week that the Chancellor is considering plans to replace the current stamp duty thresholds with a new property tax. Earlier this week The Guardian published a story about how the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering a new levy on houses over £500,000. It said the Treasury has been considering suggestions from a report by thinktank Onward. In it, Onward recommended that if a property is worth more than £500,000 it would incur an annual tax of 0.54%. Meanwhile, any home worth more than £1million would pay 0.81% on the proportion of its value over the threshold. This would replace the current stamp duty thresholds, which are tiered depending on the value of your home. Currently there is no stamp duty to pay on a home worth less than £125,000. On homes worth between £125,001 and £250,000 stamp duty is charged at a rate of 2%. But this rises to 5% for homes worth between £250,001 and £925,000. The Government has not yet confirmed how the proposals would work but did not rule them out. It is understood that only homeowners who buy a property after the tax is brought in could be affected by the change, so the tax would not be applied to properties retrospectively. This means homeowners who already paid stamp duty when they bought their home would not be charged again. The extra stamp duty for homeowners with more than one property would remain in place and this group would not have to pay the new tax. Experts have described the change as 'designed to radically overhaul stamp duty'. David Hollingworth, of L&C Mortgages, said: 'Many have called for a rethink of stamp duty which can act as a barrier to buying, moving and downsizing. 'Buyers won't shed any tears for stamp duty but may have to rethink the likely annual cost of owning their own home. 'If that sees a big increase it will have a knock on impact for affordability.' Meanwhile, property expert Kirstie Allsopp said the Chancellor's plans to reform stamp duty would have a 'destabilising' effect and added it's 'not the place to fly kites.' Speaking on Times Radio she warned: "It's not Rachel's to go after because it's their homes. "It's the roof over their head. And this Government seems to want to punish people for making the sacrifices they've made to buy their own homes." Council tax Officials are also said to be considering whether to replace council tax with a local property tax. This would mean a total overhaul of the current council tax system, which came into effect in 1993. Currently council tax is an annual fee that is paid to the local council to fund services such as road upkeep and state schools. People pay more or less depending on where they live and the size of their home. There have been fears that council tax will be reformed after several councils declared themselves bankrupt and others warned they have just months left before they run out of funds. But a total reform of the council tax system could take years, so it is unlikely to happen in this parliament. Capital gains tax Homeowners with expensive properties could be hit with capital gains tax when they decide to move house, recent reports suggest. Rachel Reeves is said to be considering ending private residence relief, which stops people from having to pay capital gains tax when they sell their main home. The change would mean that properties worth over a certain amount would be subject to the tax. Higher rate taxpayers would pay 24% of the value of any gains they make, while basic rate taxpayers would have to pay 18%, The Times has reported. If the levy was brought in with a threshold of £1.5million then it would affect around 120,000. These wealthy homeowners would be hit with a bill of £200,000 if they tried to move house. It is not clear from when this change could be introduced or if it would be phased in. Pensions Another option that could come under the microscope is tax relief on pensions. The Chancellor has previously shied away from this option but is said to be reconsidering it as an easy option to raise cash. Currently you get tax relief on any money you pay into your pension. This is done through rebates from the Government and the exact amount you get depends on your income tax rate. For example, basic rate taxpayers get 20% tax relief on any money they pay into their retirement pot. However, for higher rate taxpayers the relief rises to 40%, or 45% for additional rate taxpayers. As a result, the system is currently tilted in favour of more wealthy people as they pay more tax. But reports have suggested that the Chancellor could introduce a flat rate of tax relief. This would cut the amount of cash higher and additional taxpayers get back from the Government. However, it could also hit hardworking teachers, nurses and public sector workers who are on modest incomes. This move could raise billions of pounds for the Chancellor each year. Official figures show the total cost of providing pension tax relief was £52.5billion in 2023/24, up from £50.1billion the year before, official figures reveal. Most of this money went to higher and additional rate taxpayers. Former pensions minister Baroness Ros Altmann thinks the measure is likely to appear in the Budget. She said: "With a desperate need for more money to be invested in this country, it is inevitable that the Chancellor will be looking at whether this money could be better used in Britain directly, and I do think she will find ways to reduce its generosity." But overhauling the pension system would be a major reform, so it cannot be brought in overnight. This means the Government is unlikely to be able to use it to raise the cash it needs in the short term. What should YOU do now None of the potential changes being tabled have been confirmed yet. The Government has not yet ruled them out but any measures it introduces will not happen until after the autumn Budget at the earliest - and a date has not been set yet. Don't make any rash decisions based on the current Budget speculation. If and when the changes are announced you can decide to act to stop your finances from being hit. For example, if the changes to stamp duty are brought in from a certain date then you cold move house before this deadline to avoid being hit. Or if the Government decides to charge Capital Gains tax on high value properties then you could downsize to a smaller house before the change is implemented. Most of the suggestions on the table will only affect the very wealthy, so you may not even be hit by the tax changes. There are some things you can do if you're worried. Get financial advice If you are worried about your finances then you should speak to a financial adviser. They will be able to offer you advice about your situation and explain if any of the measures will affect you. You can find one using - but remember, you will pay a fee. Make a will First, you should ensure your money gets to the right place by making a will, according to Ms Young. 'If you die without a will, your estate will fall under the rules of intestacy, which could mean a higher IHT bill. 'This is especially key for couples who aren't married, as unmarried partners will not automatically inherit from one another, even if they have lived together for many years.' Check how to make one in our guide. Give your finances a makeover It's good practice to sit down and take stock of your finances every six months and work out a plan. Work out all your bills and outgoings and what income you have and factor in any changes, such as bills going up or new income streams. Think about what you need to do to make the most of your money. For example, do you need to prioritise paying off debts or saving for a house deposit. Our guide to paying less tax legally could help you avoid giving away more cash to the tax man than necessary. Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@
