Andy Burnham captured the mood on X when – on hearing that Shabir Ahmed, one of the leaders of the Rochdale grooming gang, was about to be released from prison – he posted: "Like everyone, I want this vile criminal out of the country … I will ask the home and foreign secretaries to review all possible options – and they should consider nothing is off the table."
The post was an indication that our prime-minister-in-waiting was taking the fight against Restore and Reform on to their turf: grooming gangs. In a single tweet, Burnham empathised with survivors, amplified our collective disgust at Ahmed and promised to do something hard-right parties have vocally advocated for. There was no “if I’m prime minister” or “should I win the leadership”. It was a command. And a popular one.
The fact that feelings were running high is understandable: Ahmed is a dangerous predator who has shown no remorse for his crimes. He has been released, albeit on licence, having served only two-thirds of his sentence. What I find curious is that at the time of tweeting Burnham probably knew that the chances of deporting this criminal were low. If Burnham really means “nothing is off the table”, then the way to ensure paedophiles like Ahmed are stopped from being a threat to children is to ensure that he and others like him are locked up for ever.
In 2012, Ahmed was convicted of raping and trafficking about 50 vulnerable girls from what the police then described as “chaotic” backgrounds. Some were as young as 12. They were plied with alcohol and drugs, ferried around in taxis and gang-raped. Their abusers paid in cash. Added to this was the alleged racial undertone of Ahmed’s Rochdale operation, which has been a key focus for the far right. At his trial, Judge Gerald Clifton said the survivors had been treated “as though they were worthless and beyond any respect” because they were not part of the same community or religion as the offenders, who were mainly of Pakistani heritage. At the time, Greater Manchester police said there was no “racial or cultural” element to the crimes. A damning report published in 2024 – when Burnham was still mayor of Greater Manchester – found there had been “serious multiple failures” by police and local authority agencies, who had left the girls “at the mercy” of Ahmed’s gang.
Following his conviction, Ahmed was stripped of his British citizenship by the then home secretary, Theresa May, on the grounds that his crimes were so serious that his presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good. Ahmed was not rendered stateless because he has Pakistani citizenship. The move was supposed to be the first step in his eventual deportation upon release – something the survivors were promised and Labour called for in opposition.
However, documents published online at the end of last month, purporting to be from the Probation Service, appeared to show he cannot be removed. This is not – as has been widely reported – a “loophole” in the law. It is due to provisions in the Immigration Act 1971, which bars the removal of people from Ireland and the Commonwealth who arrived in the UK before 1973 and have lived here for at least five years before their deportation was considered. Despite what politicians have been claiming this week, repealing the relevant section isn’t straightforward, as it would have to be retrospective.
Presumably, Burnham and his media-savvy team knew this, not least because Ahmed’s case echoes that of two other dual-citizen Rochdale gang members – Qari Abdul Rauf and Adil Khan. Both men were also stripped of their British citizenship. However, during the men’s lengthy legal challenge – which was funded with more than half a million pounds of public funds – they renounced their Pakistani citizenship, in effect blocking their own deportation. Shockingly, Rauf is believed to be living in Rochdale; it is thought Khan – who was under licence conditions – has fled abroad.
This brings us back to gang leader Shabir Ahmed. If the UK government stands any chance of deporting him, it will have to reach a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Pakistan that would contain an assurance Ahmed will not be tortured. If that is not secured, Ahmed would be able to challenge his deportation based on a claim that his article 3 right under the European Convention on Human Rights was being infringed. Worse still, one barrister told me, Ahmed might even attempt to claim asylum here. In similar cases, Pakistan has proved uncooperative.
It’s not just the Rochdale survivors who are put at risk by Ahmed’s release. He is a risk to all children everywhere. Sending him abroad risks the safety of women and girls there
If further diplomacy fails and Burnham can’t deliver on what many will interpret as a concrete promise to remove Ahmed, he lays himself open to attacks from the hard right and a lengthy legal battle, while simultaneously serving yet another blow to the hopes of some survivors who have expressed their fear over their attacker’s release.
Which brings me to what I think is the real issue: Why is Shabir Ahmed, a man who only three years ago was assessed as presenting a “high risk of sexual offending”, allowed out of prison at all?
Prison should serve three functions – to punish, rehabilitate and protect society. In Ahmed’s case it has failed on all three counts. Ahmed was convicted of crimes in two separate trials: one involving the Rochdale grooming gang and another – less reported – one involving a young Asian girl (whose identity is protected), whom he raped and sexually abused for more than a decade. The court was told he had treated her as a “possession”, to be used “for his own sexual gratification”. Ahmed received a sentence of 19 years at his first trial and 22 years at his second.
However, these sentences ran concurrently – not consecutively. This is commonplace in English and Welsh courts, which exercise the principle of totality, meaning that when sentencing someone for more than one offence, a judge must stand back and ensure the final sentence is just and proportionate to the overall offending. While I understand how this principle can prevent unduly harsh sentences for lesser offenders, I find it infuriating that a criminal like Ahmed, who was part of an organised criminal gang, has shown no remorse for his crimes and is highly likely to offend again, should be afforded that benefit.
The core issue cannot be solely dumped at the feet of the judiciary. Early release schemes mean offenders – other than those given life sentences – are automatically released after serving two-thirds of their time. This was originally designed to allow offenders time to readjust to society on licence. However, subsequent schemes have also been used by Tory and Labour governments to relieve pressure on overcrowded prisons. This was, separately, brought into sharp relief last week, when news broke that serious offenders convicted of manslaughter and rape might be given early release after serving only 40% of their sentences due to pressure on prison places.
The Home Office has said that if Ahmed – who is wearing an electronically monitored GPS tag – breaches his strict licence conditions, he will be immediately returned to prison. However, given that a recent parliamentary report described the probation service (in England and Wales) as on the brink of collapse due to chronic underfunding, I do not see how any survivor can have confidence that, after the media has moved on to the next national scandal, they will be protected from Shabir Ahmed.
This brings me to my final concern: it’s not just the Rochdale survivors who are put at risk by Ahmed’s release. He is a risk to all children everywhere. While demanding that rapists like these are deported is an understandable initial reaction, it doesn’t solve the problem. If by some miracle – or more likely economic deal – Pakistan agrees to let Ahmed in on the basis of an MOU, the licence conditions Ahmed is under here do not apply there.
The UK government’s own website describes how the criminal justice system in Pakistan fails women and girls subjected to sexual violence: “Enforcement is inconsistent and access to justice may be limited by societal attitudes, procedural barriers and resource constraints”. In other words, sending Ahmed abroad risks the safety of women and girls there. In all conscience, could we as a country live with that? I would like to think the answer is no.