THE Conservative Shadow Lord Chancellor, Robert Jenrick, has raised his concerns about lenient sentencing of those convicted of the rape and exploitation of children. He wrote on X:
‘A queue of men awaiting their turn to rape a child. Bradford Crown Court’s answer? 6 years. Out on licence in 4. This is not justice.
‘The court’s reasoning was shocking: One rapist got a reduced sentence because he’s now “very, very different” and “involved with his local mosque”. How does being involved in your local mosque reduce your sentence for child rape? This isn’t just weak sentencing. It’s dangerous naivety.’
Jenrick doesn’t name-check the judge in the case, Ahmed Nadim. He has an interesting background.
Further details of the case can be found here. Jenrick does not mention another shocking fact: that out of the three convicted, two absconded during the trial. Only Ibrar Hussain, to whom Jenrick refers to above, sentenced to six and a half years, will actually start that sentence. Judge Nadim is quoted as saying: ‘The message must go out loud and clear that the criminal justice system will do all it can to protect young and vulnerable members of our community.’ Neither the length of sentences nor the laxity around two of the defendants would seem to bear out his words.
Nadim has something of a history of lenient sentencing, particularly around sexual abuse cases. These include:
- Five years for raping a child;
- 21 months for raping an underage schoolgirl;
- No custodial sentence at all for making indecent images of children as young as five. Nadim told the defendant: ‘There was evidence that you explore your sexuality in a way that is outside the norms of society. It is disappointing that a man of your age and your experience of life behaves in this manner’;
- No custodial sentence for ‘attacking a “secret” partner in a drug-fuelled rage’. (The phrase ‘secret partner’ is concerning.)
Nadim was appointed as circuit judge for Bradford Crown Court in 2020. Born in Pakistan, he came to the UK at the age of 13 unable to speak English. He is the model of the successful immigrant: well spoken and slightly dapper, he was included as one of eight ‘A day in the life of a judge’ series publicised on the UK Judiciary website (coinciding, of course, with South Asian Heritage Month).
Prior to the bench, Nadim had a successful career at the Bar. His profile at Lincoln House Chambers states: ‘Due to his particular skill in cross-examining vulnerable witnesses and detailed preparation of cases involving large amounts of papers/information, he has been instructed in virtually all the major cases resulting from CSE/grooming investigations.’ (Emphasis mine.) It also highlights some of his recent cases:
- R v NH – Successfully defended allegations of immigration fraud;
- R v LMC – Successfully defended a military officer accused of multiple acts of rape of a German national before a court martial sitting in Germany;
- R v MA – Defeated the prosecution’s application to adduce hearsay evidence of a complainant in a CSE case where the defendant was accused of multiple allegations of rape. This resulted in the accused being exonerated of the most serious allegations made against him;
- R v MAG – Successfully appealed convictions in respect of tax and VAT fraud offence before the Court of Appeal.
Here, he is stated also to have been on the defence of ‘grooming’ gangs in the Rochdale and Manchester areas. He has also been involved in defending fraud cases, immigration and trafficking offences, and the 2001 Bradford and Oldham riots.
Of course, the presumption of innocence and legal representation in court are pillars of the English legal system, surviving the reforms of the Blair era. Even mass rapists need representation, unpalatable though it may be. Nadim was doing his job, and doing it well, it seems. But you can’t win them all: in one appeal that failed, Nadim argued that a ‘sentence of eight-and-a-half years for rape and sexual activity with a child was “in excess of his culpability” and “disproportionate” as he did not know she was a vulnerable victim’.
Also concerning is something he highlights in the video linked here: ‘It is important that the criminal justice system reaches out to the community so that the community is more informed . . .’ What he means by this is not immediately clear, but may perhaps relate to something else he has referred to here: ‘Since his term in office he has only seen two people from the Asian community attending jury service, adding that the community needs to take more responsibility in playing its part in the British justice system.’
This is in line with standard ‘representation’ rhetoric, calling for more Asian representation on juries (which tend, for reasons of practicality, to be kept local).
We must hope that those who judge us themselves have good judgment. And that those convicted of some of the worst crimes that we can imagine pay an appropriate price.
This article appeared in Dogmatic Slumbers on January 20, 2025, and is republished by kind permission.
