Police chief hits back after accusations of ‘cover-up' regarding rape suspects
It comes after Reform UK's leader Nigel Farage and Warwickshire County Council leader George Finch claimed there had been a 'cover up' after police charged the two men, who are Afghan asylum seekers.
In a letter to the Home Secretary and Warwickshire Police's chief constable, Mr Finch, the youngest council leader in the country, claimed that not publicising the pair's immigration status 'risks public disorder breaking out on the streets of Warwickshire'.
Responding to Mr Finch, Mr Franklin-Smith wrote that the force 'did not and will not' cover up alleged criminality.
'I am confident that Warwickshire Police has treated this investigation seriously from the outset working tirelessly to identify, locate, arrest and charge those suspected of being responsible for this awful crime as quickly as possible.'
Of the suspects, he wrote: 'The immigration status of Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir is now public knowledge, having been placed into the public domain by yourself.
'In light of that, I have asked the Home Office to confirm the full immigration status of Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir as per the information we shared with the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts as part of this case.'
Of a conversation he and Mr Finch had on July 31, Mr Franklin-Smith wrote: 'You informed me you had already received a confidential briefing from your chief executive and that you knew the person charged was an asylum seeker.
'I confirmed this was accurate and we wouldn't be releasing immigration status at point of charge as we follow national guidance.
'I explained the information would become public knowledge as part of the court process and that all partners must ensure we are prepared to manage any potential protest and/or disorder at that stage.
'I explained we had a police gold commander leading the overall response to this case and that the communications plan agreed by them followed consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service.
'I also explained we had briefed the Home Office.
'To be clear, I cannot tell elected individuals what to do.'
Following the reported attack in Nuneaton, Mulakhil, 23, was arrested on July 26 and charged the next day with rape, according to police.
Mulakhil appeared at Coventry Magistrates' Court last Monday and has been remanded in custody.
Kabir, 23, was arrested in Nuneaton on Thursday and charged with kidnap, strangulation and aiding and abetting rape of a girl under 13, the force added.
Kabir appeared at Coventry Magistrates' Court on Saturday and has been remanded in custody.
The issue of how much information is revealed by police regarding suspects has been the subject of fierce debate following a string of high-profile cases including the Southport killings last year.
On Tuesday, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said 'we do think more transparency is needed' in the information given by police and that 'guidance needs to change'.
In a statement released on Tuesday evening, a Home Office spokesperson said: 'As the Home Secretary said this morning, it has been widely reported that this case involves two Afghan individuals who are in the asylum system, some of which information has already been confirmed in open court.
'The Home Secretary has made clear that there is a strong public interest in maximum transparency wherever that is possible.
'That is why the Home Office and College of Policing are working together to strengthen and clarify the guidance around how and when information is released.'
Warwickshire Police previously said they do not believe anyone else was involved in the reported rape but are continuing to appeal for witnesses who may have information that could assist inquiries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
25 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Asylum seekers who work illegally should be on ‘next plane home'
Asylum seekers who work without permission should be 'on the next plane home', Kemi Badenoch has said. The Conservative Party leader and shadow home secretary Chris Philp have proposed a crackdown on illegal working amid fears a 'soft touch' is driving English Channel crossings. Migrants whose asylum claims are yet to be processed are not generally allowed to work but they can apply for permission to work if they have been waiting a year or longer for a decision. The Home Office last month struck an agreement with Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats to equip these companies with tools to identify patterns of misuse and riders who are not allowed to work in the UK. The Government will share the locations of asylum hotels as part of the deal. But the Conservatives have called for illegal working to become a disqualifier in the asylum process, so that anyone caught is barred from becoming a refugee. 'If you come here illegally, take advantage of our asylum system, and then break our laws by illegally working, your asylum claim must be rejected and you should be on the next plane home,' Mrs Badenoch said. 'Under my leadership, the Conservatives will never allow Britain to become a soft touch for those who think they can break the rules and profit from it.' She also said that illegal working 'rewards illegality, protects perpetrators and mocks hard-working taxpayers.' Mr Philp said he had seen riders gathering at a hotel housing asylum seekers, which he described as 'an underground courier cartel operating right under this Government's nose'. He continued: 'Illegal working is a pull factor sold by smugglers as a reward to break in to our country and cross the Channel. 'That is why we are calling for new action: anyone who plays the system should have their status stripped, wages confiscated, and be deported.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has previously said that 'illegal working undermines honest business, exploits vulnerable individuals and fuels organised immigration crime'.
Powys County Times
26 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Angela Rayner calls on China to explain redacted images in super-embassy plans
Angela Rayner has told China to explain why parts of its plans for a new super-embassy in London are redacted. The Deputy Prime Minister, who as Housing Secretary is responsible for overseeing planning matters, has given Beijing two weeks to explain why areas of its plans for the sprawling new embassy site in central London are blacked out. China hawks in Westminster have raised alarm that the embassy site could be used to conduct surveillance from British soil. Pro-democracy campaigners from Hong Kong, as well as Uighurs and Tibetans, meanwhile, fear that intimidation and reprisals from the Chinese state could result from the embassy going ahead. This follows reports that bounties have been issued by China for dissident Hong Kongers now living in the UK. In a letter seen by the PA news agency, Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government asks planning consultants representing the Chinese embassy to explain why drawings of the planned site are blacked out. The letter gives two weeks, until August 20, for an explanation to be provided. It also suggests that a final planning decision on the embassy site, at Royal Mint Court, just east of London's financial district, will be made by September 9. Copies of the letter were also sent to the Home Office and the Foreign Office by email. It notes that the Home Office requested a new 'hard perimeter' be placed around the embassy site, to prevent 'unregulated public access', and acknowledges this could require a further planning application. Plans for the super-embassy were previously rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022, with the Chinese opting not to appeal. However, Beijing resubmitted the application a fortnight after Sir Keir Starmer's election victory last year, believing Labour may be more receptive to the application. Since entering office Sir Keir's Government has sought closer links with Beijing after a cooling during the final years of Conservative Party rule. The final decision will be made by Mr Rayner in her role as Housing Secretary. Alicia Kearns, the shadow national security minister, said: 'No surprises here – Labour's rush to appease Xi Jinping's demands for a new embassy demonstrated a complacency when it came to keeping our people safe. Having deluded themselves for so long, they've recognised we were right to be vigilant. 'The disturbing bounty notes urging British citizens to kidnap and deliver their Hong Kong neighbours to the current CCP embassy laid bare the risks – yet the Foreign Secretary didn't even summon the Chinese ambassador in the face of direct threats to those seeking refuge in our country. 'CCP ambitions for a larger embassy would only amplify opportunities for espionage and transnational repression.'
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Haircuts are a human right!
During the immigration deluge in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it seems one Afghan and one Indian national who threw themselves on the mercy of much-besieged Ireland got lost in the shuffle. Fobbed off with €25 vouchers, they were obliged to sometimes sleep rough for two months, without access to food and hygiene and exposed to hardship and fear. They've sued the Irish state. Knowing Irish NGOs, I bet they got help. The government has argued that the pressures on Ireland's hospitality at the time were severe enough to qualify as a force majeure. Their reception centres were full to bursting and there was no room at the inn (and haven't we heard that before). The Irish High Court sought a ruling from the European Court of Justice. Last Friday, the ECJ determined that being overwhelmed and full up did not reprieve the state from its obligations under the EU Reception Conditions Directive to provide all asylum seekers with, among other things, housing, food, clothing and education for minors. Therefore, having been cheated of such provisions, the petitioners are likely due compensation. Why, those 71 days of Down and Out in Dublin could really pay off. So no matter how limitless an inundation of indigent foreigners and how finite their own resources, European states literally owe nationals from all over the world a living. Because housing is a 'human right'. (Certainly it's a human right according to the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani, who hopes to extend the city's hitherto ruinously universal 'right to shelter'.) Food is a 'human right'. Healthcare is a 'human right' (often extending to sex-change operations). The umbrella of 'human rights' does nothing but expand and now protects not merely citizens but anyone from anywhere who rocks up on your patch. Imagine, then, that you were born in a rural area of an African country whose political rhetoric isn't so loftily supranational. If you don't scratch a few mouthfuls from your parched smallholding, you don't eat. Your 'accommodation' wouldn't naturally command such a grand label: a grass-roofed hut with a mud floor. Inside you cook on an open fire, the smoke from which is ravaging your lungs. Second-rate healthcare may be available only after a long, expensive journey. Education for your children requires school fees you may not be able to afford. Anyone in such circumstances who hears tell of a place where all these basic needs are 'human rights' even for foreigners and doesn't hightail it to such a Valhalla would have to be stupid, lazy or crazy. Brits shouldn't feel smug about no longer being required to follow the likes of the EU Reception Conditions Directive (yet; give our friend Sir Keir a bit more time), because in the UK asylum seekers are due not just free room and board, but often luxury hotel digs – with four-poster beds, video games and all-you-can-eat buffets – as well as group outings to the circus and safari parks. For British asylum seekers, even Netflix and Disney+ are 'human rights'. Funnily enough, Whitehall doesn't consider such subscriptions human rights for its own citizenry, some of whom, astonishingly, have to pay for them. This human rights business is a bigger issue than its influence on immigration. Is it really the case that the world, or at least your government, owes you a living from the off? At this point, too, maybe we should be asking what's not a human right. In fact, many folks seriously argue that access to the smartphones and the internet is now a human right. Well, we all grow hair. So shouldn't haircuts be a human right? Electricity, clean running water and indoor plumbing? If so, why should anyone pay utility bills? In both British and American cities, the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting – which progressives justify as the poor's response to 'inequality' – means just about any off-the-shelf good is a human right. Razor blades. Turtlenecks. Mayonnaise. A human right is anything you happen to need. Bloated welfare rolls suggest that opting for benefits in Britain has become a lifestyle choice. Taking advantage of a host of programmes, Americans, too, can amass more in state support than the average wage. But isn't that nice? Haven't we created a better world, in which everything is free and work is elective? That way you only take a job if it's fun. Alas, gifting sweeping human rights to some people takes other people's human rights away. Requiring the state to provide all-comers with housing, food, clothing, healthcare and, yeah, maybe even haircuts implicitly demands that the state requisition these resources from the few suckers who still work for a living. The suckers are punished twice: they provide their own basic needs – even their own safari park tickets! – and then they provide the basic needs of everyone else. Eventually the smarter dray horses will stop hauling the cart and jump in the hay wagon, too. The western welfare state disables the survival instinct – or at least reroutes it from foraging in the forest to foraging on governmental websites. State dependents apply all the cunning, ingenuity and resourcefulness they might otherwise have employed to keep body and soul together in a more Darwinian social landscape to filling out forms, researching on TikTok what phrases to use in Zoom interviews with bureaucrats and maximising motability schemes. This is where I'm supposed to add: 'Of course, advanced societies shouldn't let people starve!' But maybe this ostensibly unquestionable precept has sown the seeds of our destruction. A handful of genuinely hungry people could be usefully cautionary. Western refusal to house, feed and clothe every newcomer might encourage more would-be immigrants to make a go of things where they are. And without handouts, you can bet most of those anxious and depressed young people currently swelling the disability rolls would figure out how to obtain a sandwich before they fainted from malnutrition.
