Benedict Azam Found Guilty of Multiple Sexual Assaults in Oakham Rutland, Following Leicester Crown Court Trial
A jury today at Leicester Crown Court has returned a unanimous guilty verdict against Benedict Azam, following a trial detailing a series of predatory sexual assaults in Oakham last year on the 17th and 18th August last year. The proceedings concluded on day two with Azam receiving a 12-month custodial sentence and being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a decade.
The second day of the trial opened with a successful application by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to provide screens for the day’s primary witnesses. This measure was granted by the judge following a complaint from court staff regarding the defendant’s conduct during the previous day’s session.
The second complainant provided evidence from behind a curtain. She recounted an incident occurring around midday as she returned to the Rutland County Council offices from lunch. While using her security pass to access a restricted area, she was approached from behind. The witness testified that the defendant grabbed her bottom and placed his hand on her vagina. Upon being told to stop, the complainant described Benedict Azam as appearing "vacant," simply saying "okay" before walking away. The witness later identified Benedict Azam during a formal police identification parade.
A third complainant testified to an encounter on Oakham High Street while she was loading shopping into her vehicle. CCTV footage shown to the court corroborated her account, appearing to show the defendant touching her. The woman repeatedly told Benedict Azam to "go away" and used profanity to deter him. She eventually attempted to flag down a police van, though she was unsuccessful at that moment. A local business owner, who was too unwell to attend court, had parts of his statement read into evidence. He had witnessed the assault from his shop window and managed to take a photograph of the defendant at 12:09 PM on August 18, 2015.
The court heard from PC Orton, who apprehended Benedict Azam sitting on a bench outside the Lord Nelson pub in the Market Place Oakham. The officer recognised Benedict Azam from a circulated description. When questioned, Benedict Azam responded with "no comment," leading to his arrest.
Witness Number Six, an officer named Gareth who oversaw the case, confirmed, Benedict Azam maintained a "no comment" stance throughout all police interviews. The defendant was positively identified via fingerprint analysis. Records indicated that prior to these events, Benedict Azam had no previous convictions for sexual offences.
Throughout the trial, Benedict Azam declined legal representation, despite the judge noting that it would have been provided free of charge. He further declined the opportunity to give evidence or comment on applications made during the trial.
Following a lunch break and the judge's summing up, the jury deliberated for one hour and 23 minutes. They returned guilty verdicts on all three counts of sexual assault.
His Honour Judge Mooncey, Sentenced Benedict Azam to 12 months imprisonment (concurrent for all charges) and placed Benedict Azam on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years
The judge declined an application for a restraining order that would have banned Benedict Azam from the entirety of Oakham, citing the town's size and the lack of a legal representative to argue against the breadth of such an order. However, the judge remarked that given the high level of local interest, it would likely not be in Azam's "best interests" to return to the area upon release.
The proceedings concluded with the judge commending the work of the Leicestershire police officers involved and expressing his appreciation for the town of Oakham he had visited Oakham and found it to be a good place to visit.
In concluding remarks, the Prosecutor and the judge specifically addressed the perception of "lenient" sentencing, noting that judges are bound by a legal framework designed to ensure fairness and consistency across the country.
Judges in England and Wales do not have unlimited discretion. They must follow the Sentencing Act 2020 (and the recent Sentencing Act 2026) and specific guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.
The primary goal is to ensure that a person in Leicester receives a similar sentence to someone in London for the same crime.
Judges must first determine the "category" of the offence based on culpability (how much the offender is to blame) and harm (the impact on the victim).
The judge then adjusts the sentence up or down based on specific factors. As he did in this case he raised the sentence to level two.
Due to a previous conviction, and committing crimes in public.
The prosecution and the judge addressed the prosecution’s concern regarding recent media coverage, which often portrays sentences as "soft."
"Judges can only sentence according to guidance they have to follow by law."
Research from the Sentencing Academy consistently shows that when the public is given the full facts of a case rather than just a headline their preferred sentence usually aligns closely with what the judge actually delivered. Media reports often focus on the "maximum possible" sentence (e.g., 10 years), whereas the guidelines define what is "proportionate" for the specific facts proven in court.
A unique aspect of this trial was Benedict Azam’s refusal to accept free legal representation or engage with the court.
The judge went to great lengths to ensure Benedict Azam understood his rights, repeatedly asking if he had comments or questions.
Because Benedict Azam did not give evidence, the jury only had the victims' testimonies and CCTV to rely on.
The judge's decision not to grant a town-wide restraining order was a technical legal one. Without a defence lawyer to argue the specifics, the judge felt a total ban on a large town like Oakham could be considered legally disproportionate and potentially subject to appeal.
The revelation of a 2025 conviction in London and a potential outstanding warrant added complexity. The judge noted that the Prison Service is legally required to check for all outstanding warrants before any release, ensuring that Benedict Azam remains accountable for his conduct in other jurisdictions.
Trial Begins for Benedict Azam Following String of Alleged Sexual Assaults in Oakham
Trial Begins for Benedict Azam Following String of Alleged Sexual Assaults in Oakham
The trial of Benedict Azam opened today at Leicester Crown Court before His Honour Judge Mooncey. Azam faces three counts of sexual assault following a series of incidents reported in Oakham during August 2025.
From the outset of the proceedings, the defendant’s unconventional stance remained a focal point. Azam, who remains unrepresented, once again refused to engage with the court or answer any questions posed by Judge Mooncey.
Due to the defendant's lack of legal counsel and the sensitive nature of the allegations, the Crown has appointed Mr. Newcome to handle the cross-examination of the complainants. This measure ensures the witnesses are protected from direct questioning by the accused while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.
The court was provided with background on Azam’s circumstances, described as a self-chosen "nomadic existence." At the time of his arrest, he was reportedly living under tarpaulin near the Oakham Canal. Despite his lifestyle and refusal to participate in the trial, the court heard that Azam has no previous convictions and that those who have interacted with him outside of the courtroom observed no signs of mental illness.
Following the swearing-in of the jury, the prosecution outlined the three charges of sexual assault. To support their opening statement, the jury was shown CCTV footage from Oakham High Street, which allegedly depicts Azam approaching a woman as she loaded her vehicle.
Incident 1, Burley Road (August 17, 2025)
The first complainant, a woman who was walking her dog along Burley Road, provided evidence from behind a protective curtain. She described a distressing encounter on the evening of August 17 2025. The witness sensed she was being followed, noting that her dog was reacting visibly to the man behind them. In an attempt to let the man pass, she moved onto the grass verge; however, the defendant allegedly followed her, stopping only a foot away before attempting to grab her. The complainant testified that she used firm language and told him to F Off to deter him, but he touched her bottom as he moved away. The witness managed to take two photographs of the man and immediately reported the incident via 999. She later posted the images to an Oakham Facebook group to warn residents, a post she later removed at the request of the police.
Incident 2: Rutland County Council (August 18, 2025)
The second charge involves a female staff member at Rutland County Council. The court heard that as she and a colleague were returning from lunch and swiping into a secured area, a man approached and grabbed her bottom and vagina. This witness is scheduled to provide her testimony tomorrow.
Incident 3: Oakham High Street (August 18, 2025)
Approximately ten minutes after the incident at the Council offices, a third assault allegedly occurred on the High Street. A woman loading her car reported that a man approached her and grabbed her bottom. When the victim challenged the man, he fled the scene. A local shopkeeper reportedly took photographs of the suspect, identified by the prosecution as Azam.
The trial is set to continue tomorrow, with the jury expected to hear testimony from the staff member involved in the Rutland County Council incident, as well as the complainant and witness from the High Street assault and the police.
In a criminal trial such as this, a defendant's refusal to speak or engage with the court creates a specific set of legal challenges. Because the UK justice system is built on the principle of a fair trial, several "safety nets" are triggered when a defendant like Benedict Azam remains unrepresented and silent.
Here is a breakdown of the legal implications of these actions. While a defendant has a right to remain silent, it is not without consequence. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, if a defendant refuses to testify or answer questions at trial, the Judge can direct the jury that they may draw an "adverse inference." The jury can be told they are allowed to conclude that the defendant’s silence is because they have no innocent explanation for the evidence presented against them. A defendant cannot be convicted solely on their silence; there must be other evidence (such as the CCTV and witness testimony mentioned in this case) to support a guilty verdict.
In cases involving sexual offences, the law prevents unrepresented defendants from personally cross-examining their accusers to avoid further distress to the victims. Because Azam is unrepresented, the court has appointed a legal professional (often called a Section 38 representative) specifically to cross-examine the complainants. This lawyer is appointed by the court, not the defendant. Their job is to test the prosecution's evidence fairly, even if the defendant refuses to give them instructions. When a defendant refuses to speak during their arraignment (the "mute of malice" vs. "mute by visitation of God"), the court must determine if the silence is intentional. If the Judge determines the defendant is choosing not to speak (malice), the court enters a "Not Guilty" plea on their behalf. This ensures the trial can proceed and the prosecution is still required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Before a trial proceeds with a silent defendant, the court usually considers whether the person is mentally capable of understanding the charges. In this case, the court noted that those who spoke to Azam outside of court did not believe he had any mental illness. If there were concerns, the Judge would have ordered a psychiatric assessment to see if he was "unfit to plead." Since the trial is moving forward, the court has effectively deemed him capable of participating, even if he chooses not to.
As the trial moves into its second day, the prosecution is expected to call several key witnesses to the stand to complete the narrative of the events on August 18, 2025. The jury will hear from the woman allegedly assaulted at the Rutland County Council offices. Her testimony will likely focus on the "secure area" access point and the specific nature of the physical contact. The lady who was approached while loading her car is expected to describe the encounter and her subsequent challenge to the defendant. A local business owner is slated to provide evidence regarding the photographs taken on the High Street, which the prosecution claims positively identify Benedict Azam at the scene. Mr. Newcome, the court-appointed representative, will have the opportunity to test the reliability and memory of these witnesses to ensure a fair trial, despite the defendant's continued silence.
You may have noticed the first witness gave evidence from behind a curtain. This is a common "Special Measure" granted by the court to help vulnerable witnesses or victims of sexual assault give their best evidence. Other measures the Judge may allow tomorrow include, Testifying via video from a different room. Similar to the curtain, preventing the witness from having to see the defendant. In rare cases, the Judge may limit who can sit in the courtroom during sensitive testimony.
Editor’s Note regarding Reporting Restrictions
Editor’s Note: Oakham and Rutland News had to the opportunity to speak to the judge today and is reporting on these proceedings in accordance with directions issued by His Honour Judge Mooncey at Leicester Crown Court. Under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, complainants in cases of a sexual nature are entitled to lifetime anonymity. The Court has confirmed that all matters heard in open court may be reported, provided that the identities of the complainants are not published or disclosed.
The trial is set to continue tomorrow at 10.30am, with the jury expected to hear testimony from the staff member involved in the Rutland County Council incident, as well as the complainant and witness from the High Street assault and Leicestershire Police.
Legal Note: All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
