𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Child rapist Ahmad Mulakhil shouldn’t have his prison sentence increased because he is too “immature”, Labour minister and Solicitor General Ellie Reeves has agreed. Mulakhil, 23, attacked a schoolgirl after luring her into a secluded area behind a row of garages in Nuneaton. He filmed the rape and then later tried to blame his traumatised victim.

The case sparked national outrage, and the Afghan small boat migrant was jailed for 15 years in March. But Shadow Home Office minister Alicia Kearns urged ministers to argue the sentence was too short, under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. That bid was unsuccessful. Ms Kearns blasted: “Ahmad Mulakhil raped a 12-year-old child, yet a judge and our Government deem him ‘too immature’ at 23 to grasp the gravity of his crime. This is Britain under Labour: a 16-year-old can vote, but offenders in their 20s aren’t old enough to be held accountable for abusing a child.

“It’s indefensible that he didn’t receive the maximum sentence – and worse still that the Government refuses to treat it as unduly lenient.

“I referred his sentence to government as unduly lenient because that is what it is – the Government’s refusal to refer this sentence is a serious failure of justice for a very brave victim.”

Solicitor General Ellie Reeves told Ms Kearns: “Throughout her sentencing exercise, the judge considered and weighed the factors which made the offending more serious, including the fact that the victim is a looked after child with particular communication and emotional vulnerabilities.

“The victim was caused significant psychological harm and the offender had taken her to a secluded location.

“These features placed the offender higher in the sentencing range, according to the offence-specific guideline. The judge also had to take into account those factors which are capable of mitigating the sentence, including the offender’s previous good character and his own immaturity by reason of his age.

“I appreciate that sentences deemed to be within a reasonable range from a legal perspective are not always perceived to be adequate by others.

“However, the test for undue leniency is strictly applied and it would have been wrong for me to refer a case having concluded the Court of Appeal would be unlikely to increase the sentence.” Mulakhil first spotted the schoolgirl playing on swings in a Nuneaton playground.

He then lured the girl down a secluded cul-de-sac in the town before repeatedly raping her and filming the attack.

In a recorded statement, the girl said: “He was trying to strip my clothes off. He said nothing. He was laughing.

“I was saying ‘get off me’, but he didn’t say anything – he just carried on. He was saying he was going to kill my family. I was scared. He took photos. It felt weird. Why was he taking pictures of that?”

The depraved sex beast then took the 12-year-old to a nearby corner shop and used his Home Office-issued Aspen card to buy two cans of Red Bull.

The schoolgirl ran off and was discovered in another park by two adults, who called the police.

Sentencing guidelines state Mulakhil could have been jailed for 19 years.

Ms Reeves also said: “The bar to increasing a sentence is a very high one. The Court of Appeal will only do so in exceptional circumstances: for example, if the judge has made some gross error, or has passed a sentence that falls outside the range of sentences which a judge, applying their mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.”

She concluded: “I am very sorry that this is not the decision that you were hoping for, but please be assured that I have given your request and this case the most careful consideration.”