by The Local Democracy Reporter.
The sentencing of Ahmad Mulakhil has ignited a fierce national debate over judicial leniency and the protection of minors, sparked by a ruling that many including Rutland and Stamford MP Alicia Kearns view as a catastrophic failure of the justice system. At the heart of the controversy is the decision to spare the 23-year-old the maximum possible sentence for the rape of a 12-year-old girl, a move Alicia Kearns has branded as "shameful."
Alicia Kearns took the significant step of referring Mulakhil’s sentence to the Government for review under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. She argued that the initial jail term failed to reflect the gravity of the crime or the lifelong trauma inflicted upon the young victim. However, the Government ultimately agreed with the original Judge’s assessment that the maximum sentence could not be applied. The justification for this leniency was Mulakhil’s “own immaturity by reason of his age” a reasoning that Kearns has rejected with visible indignation. "He is 23. She was 12," she noted, pointing out the absurdity of treating a grown man as too immature to understand the horror of his actions.
The Daily Express has been instrumental in bringing this case to the public eye, documenting Alicia Kearns’ persistent efforts to see the sentence extended. Their reporting has highlighted the public’s growing frustration with sentencing guidelines that appear to prioritise the perpetrator’s background over the victim’s right to justice. The Express coverage framed the case as a litmus test for the UK’s commitment to protecting children from predators, suggesting that the current legal framework may be out of step with societal expectations of accountability.
However, the push for a harsher sentence has not seen universal political support. Labour MP Alex Cunningham defended the decision to uphold the original sentence, suggesting that the Judge had acted within the established legal parameters. From this perspective, the judicial focus on the offender’s personal circumstances is a standard part of the legal process, and intervening in this specific case was deemed unnecessary by the Government.
For Alicia Kearns, this explanation offers little comfort. By accepting the "immaturity" of a 23-year-old as a mitigating factor in the rape of a child, Alicia Kearns argues that the system is sending a dangerous message. As the case concludes without an extension of Mulakhil’s time behind bars, the debate continues to rage over whether the British courts are doing enough to ensure that the punishment truly fits the crime.
In March 2026, the sentencing of Ahmad Mulakhil brought a conclusion to a case that had deeply affected the community of Nuneaton. Mulakhil, a 23-year-old Afghan national who had been in the United Kingdom for only four months at the time of the offence, was handed a custodial sentence at Warwick Crown Court for what was described as a "horrific" attack on a 12-year-old girl.
The court heard that in July 2025, Mulakhil targeted the young victim after spotting her playing on the swings in Marlborough Park. He subsequently abducted her, leading her to a nearby residential cul-de-sac where he subjected her to a prolonged sexual assault. Throughout the trial, it was revealed that Mulakhil had not only carried out the attack but had also filmed the ordeal on his mobile phone a detail that prosecutors described as particularly "revolting."
Mulakhil was convicted of two counts of rape, child abduction, two counts of sexual assault, and taking an indecent photograph of a child. While he had pleaded guilty to one count of rape in November 2025, he denied the remaining charges, forcing the victim to provide evidence. A jury ultimately found him guilty of the additional offences in February 2026.
Presiding over the case, Judge Kristina Montgomery KC sentenced Mulakhil to 16 years, comprised of 15 years in custody and an additional year on extended licence. In addition to the prison term, he was made the subject of an indefinite sexual harm prevention order and an indefinite restraining order. As an asylum seeker with a criminal conviction of this magnitude, the court further noted that he is liable for deportation upon the completion of his sentence.
In her sentencing remarks, Judge Montgomery did not mince words regarding the gravity of the crime or the impact on the survivor. She dismissed Mulakhil's claims that he believed the girl was an adult, noting that the jury’s verdict confirmed he knew exactly how young she was. The Judge highlighted that the victim continues to suffer from "trauma responses and medical issues" as a direct result of the attack. Addressing Mulakhil directly, the Judge stated:
"Your victim was particularly vulnerable due to her personal circumstances and she has suffered significant and ongoing psychological harm. You targeted a child who was left distressed and hypervigilant by your actions."
The case had previously gained significant national attention, sparking protests in Nuneaton and leading to a debate regarding the disclosure of the immigration status of defendants in high-profile cases. Following the sentencing, police officials praised the "extraordinary courage" of the young victim, whose testimony was vital in ensuring Mulakhil was brought to justice.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)