Browse Sections

Interactive

Popular Sections

Weather

Partly cloudy

Personal Finance

Balance Transfer

Card	Typical APR

Virgin Credit Card	16.6%
Barclaycard Platinum	15.9%
NatWest Platinum	16.9%
Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum	16.9%
Egg Card	16.9%

Customers with a 'good' credit profile

Company

Typical APR

Platinum Exclusive	7.8%
Sainsbury's Personal Loan	7.9%
Alliance & Leicester	7.9%

Fees may apply

News

| Submit Comments | Comments (78) | « Previous Story | Next Story »

Ajmal Afridi ,19, of Merefield Street, Rochdale, pleaded guilty to two counts of rape View gallery (total of 3 images)

Three men jailed for 'appalling' gang rape of teenage girl

January 29, 2010

THREE men who joined in the 'appalling' gang rape of a drunken teenage girl have been jailed.

The trio took advantage of their young victim when she was 'intoxicated and helpless' a court was told.

While they carried out a series of sexual assaults, one of their friends took pictures on a mobile phone camera.

The girl's mother called her mobile phone during the attacks, only to hear the cries of her daughter on the end of the line.

Ajmal Afridi ,19, of Merefield Street, Rochdale, Imtiaz Syed, 20, of Ellesmere Street, Rochdale and Tayab Hussain, 19, of Henry Street, Rochdale, all pleaded guilty to rape.

They were each given custodial sentences at Bolton Crown Court.

Detective Constable Charles Stewart, of Rochdale CID, said after the case: "These three animals have subjected the victim to the most appalling and demeaning crime.

“They took full advantage of a young, vulnerable girl with no considerations to the huge and devastating impact this has had on her.

“The fact this vile attack was filmed by another person has made this all the more difficult for the victim and they have rightly been given long sentences for their crimes.”

Afridi pleaded guilty to two rapes and sexual assault and was sentenced to six years in a young offenders' institution.

Syed pleaded guilty to rape and sexual assault and was also given a six-year sentence.

Hussain, who pleaded guilty to rape, was sentenced to three years in a young offenders' institution.

They were all banned indefinitely from working with children.

The girl was raped at a house in Rochdale on May 28 last year.

Passing sentence Judge William Morris said: "You each took advantage of her when she was intoxicated and helpless.

"This was spontaneous behaviour on the part of you all deciding as and when this opportunity arose."

He added: "At the time of committing these offences neither one of you had reason to believe she was consenting to what you were doing to her.

"She was incapable of such consent."

A victim statement read by Virginia Hayton, prosecuting, said the teenager felt violated and her self-esteem was low after the attack.

In October 17-year-old Mustafa Arshad of Melrose, Rochdale, was sentenced to eight months in a young offenders institution after he was convicted of using a mobile phone to take photographs of the assaults on the young girl.

| Submit Comments | Comments (78) | « Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 25 of 78

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next Page Show 25 | 50 per page

Why were they locked up in a "young offenders institute"? They were 19 & 20....surely they are adults and should be in adult prison where they can suffer the same attacks they inflicted on the poor young girl who's life they've destroyed.

Shut up it's just a rash!, Swinton
7/03/2010 at 05:56

To Emma Gilligan all I like to say is get back to the planet Stupid,you just dont get it,like one comment says thank God you were not on the Jury. These blokes are filth in the eyes of decent people and dont deserve to be part of a law abiding society.

Luise, Sydney
24/02/2010 at 09:09

Agree with (bluemanc1309, rochdale) comment Sadly this is how Rochdale is now in 2010. These people have roamed around the town for a long time now doing exactly these things. Luckily this one girl had come forward and reported these people to the Police.

What The Hell
20/02/2010 at 00:56

God MarXPacE! You should be a top Criminal Lawyer or Judge. What would have been your sum up to the Jury?? 20 years plus for each of them or ASBO tag them for 18 months. Which way do you swing? I know what way they should swing.!!!!

E K
19/02/2010 at 23:05

The decent people of Rochdale obviously abhor these "vile" excuses for human beings. However it's clear that some are trying to provide excuses of all kinds to exhonerate them. Theses people are on the same level as the rapist, and should be ashamed of themselves.

John P.

john parry,
18/02/2010 at 08:37

As you may know, the Law Officers (the Attorney General and Solicitor General) have the power, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to refer to the Court of Appeal a sentence passed in the Crown Court for review which appears to them to be an unduly lenient sentence. This power only applies to sentences imposed for certain serious offences. If the sentence is for an offence which falls within the scheme, the power to refer is subject to a strict 28 day time limit from the date that the sentence was passed.

The Attorney General or Solicitor General can only refer a case to the Court of Appeal where she considers the sentence to be unduly lenient. By way of background, the Court of Appeal has said that a sentence is unduly lenient where “it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate”. (Attorney General’s Reference number 4 of 1989 (1990) 90 CR App R 366). Therefore in order for the Attorney to refer it to the Court of Appeal it must be not just low but “manifestly not sufficiently severe” (Attorney General’s Reference numbers 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 and 51 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim). Even then, the Court has a wide discretion as to whether or not to interfere in such cases. Where the Court does consider that a sentence was unduly lenient, they will not replace the sentence with that which they considered should have been passed at first instance. This is because the Court takes into account the fact that the offender has been put through the sentencing process a second time and gives a discount for this element of “double jeopardy”. This means that it is only where the sentence passed is significantly below the sentence any Judge could have passed that the Court of Appeal will interfere.

Decisions on whether or not to refer cases are taken only after very careful consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case and the relevant sentencing law and guidelines.

MarXPacE, Sheriff Street
11/02/2010 at 12:06

Here are the facts! A tribunal of fact and law found them guilty of rape, to the credit of one scum bag who doubtless wanted the discount he pleaded guilty. As for the sentences, well, the law has truly kidnapped justice. Here is another fact, these three individuals are real 'scum bags', no woman is safe and that is a fact. Say what you will but under English law I have the right to express my opinion which is hang the scumbags.

Rochdale born., Witheld
6/02/2010 at 17:30

it seems that these rapist's friends are posting comments on this story under fake names, just because they are blind in what they hear or see. admit they are animals like what most people would do and stop blaming the victim and others

bluemanc1309, rochdale
3/02/2010 at 10:16

Ace, as they won't let me have my opinions on tis thread and others related, I will back you all the way.

When in Rome,
2/02/2010 at 01:45

Gilligan/Emma Blog/Bakey -

we added our disgust about this horrific crime because we read what the courts established, these scumbags were tried under the English law FACT. If you dont like to hear the `truth` then I suggest you switch off your pc`s and go to live in another country.

These vile cowards should have been jailed for 20 years minimum for such an attrocious attached on a woman. shame on them and you!

Jetstar, Manchest`oh !
1/02/2010 at 22:56

OMG I have just had a look at the pictures of them increase the sentances to death!

Buzz Killington, Somewhere over the rainbow
1/02/2010 at 15:55

I wonder if Emma Gilligan & David bakey would be as sympathetic to this scum if they were the ones that got raped?

Buzz Killington, Somewhere over the rainbow
1/02/2010 at 15:50

David Bakery your comment 'inocent as you dont no the case this was a stich up,hope the truth comes out '

If Im reading this correctly -you know the truth. Have you been to the police? Their Lawyers. If you know these men are 'innocent' as per your comment - then have you given evidence to this effect - if not why not? Would you care to divulge said information on here? Or are oyu off the same planet as the other poster on here?

tiggerluc, somewhere in shaw
1/02/2010 at 15:17

Angie33 , Manchester these are not sick little boys a illness can be cured most of the time,these monsters are the lowest form of life and see women as a piece of meat they can abuse and riddecule? to take pictures of a rape tells me that it was pre meditated and these monsters may have done this before? but whichever way you see it look at it from the girls point of view she has to live with this for the rest of her life.

Ace Riley, outsidethebox
1/02/2010 at 14:59

david bakey

So what is the story? The case is over now so subjudice isn't an issue. Or perhaps you don't know the story either.

Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary
1/02/2010 at 14:16

inocent as you dont no the case this was a stich up,hope the truth comes out

david bakey,
1/02/2010 at 14:09

"What gives any of you the right to comment" The 'add your comments' section at the bottom ;-) if you were truly innocent and had a back bone to stand up for what you believe is right then an innocent man would not plead guilt to an offence he did not commit. People are free to pass comment on here.

peddler, cheadle
1/02/2010 at 13:48

Emma... Freedom of speach gives us the right to comment on these cowards.

Think about the victim before you start molly coddling the guilty.

Henrys Dog, Rochdale
1/02/2010 at 13:47

What gives any of you the right to comment on these men when not one of you knows what really went on. Just because they pleaded guilty doesnt necessarily mean that that they did it as crazy as that sounds. I'm not gonna be the one that judges just yet. Emma Gilligan 1/02/2010 at 10:22 Offensive or Inappropriate?

What planet are you on. I will call these pieces of trash what ever I want and judge on whatever my moral opinion allows, that being to not do harm to another person in any way . They pleaded guilty and are guilty. Trash. Trash. Trash.

JTC Formerley JimC,
1/02/2010 at 13:06

Id say they are sick little boys in mens bodies.The trouble is there are millions of them.

Angie33 , Manchester
1/02/2010 at 12:42

Emma Blog god now i know why britain is in such a mess with silly little people like you .Its time we started to rid britain of monsters like these and stop taking notice of silly people like "emma" who lives in cookoo land like most other liberal thinkers.These people need to understand the feelings of these victims of these filthy monsters.(The birch and hanging should be re-instated)im sick and tired of listening to these people defending these monsters.

Ace Riley, outsidethebox
1/02/2010 at 12:38

"Hussain, who pleaded guilty to rape, was sentenced to three years in a young offenders' institution."

words fail me.

sneakitawc,
1/02/2010 at 12:31

Emma Gilligan What gives any of you the right to comment on these men when not one of you knows what really went on. Just because they pleaded guilty doesnt necessarily mean that that they did it as crazy as that sounds. I'm not gonna be the one that judges just yet.

People have every right to comment after a trial by a court of law this is called freedom of speech. We all know what went on it tells you in the article written by the MEN. Did you read it or just look at the pictures. Yes, it does sound crazy that they pleaded guilty to committing a vile and disgusting crime. Knowing that they will go to prison and will be released back into the community where they will be despised by all. They were caught bang to rights and being the pigs they are hoped for a reduced sentence. They should have got treble that sentence.

blizzard, derbyshire 30/01/2010 at 18:26 The description of the word scum when applied to people is : "A worthless or contemptible person or group of people" Personally I think the word scum is not harsh enough for these ?????? Blizzard why dont you recommend a description for them as we are all that dim you can show us the way or can't you think of one. It's easy to criticise but not so east to contribute to the discussion.

Belrock, England
1/02/2010 at 11:58

Emma ...are you on the same planet? Have you read the article - they took pictures for god sakes! Are you related to that poster that called us dim?

Of course they did it, the evidence is over whelming! Thank god you werent on the jury!

tiggerluc, somewhere in shaw
1/02/2010 at 11:44

these vile creatures are not men ,and emma they only pleaded guilty so that they would get a lighter sentance, you see to admit your offence you get rewarded .they are guilty and should never be let out because they seemed to get a buzz out of this sort of thing ,what else do these animals find acceptable??????

STRETFORDIAN, TRAFFORD
1/02/2010 at 11:05

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next Page Show 25 | 50 per page

Add Your Comments

Loading poll, please wait...

Rochdale's definitive entertainment guide.

Search and rate restaurants in Rochdale

Search and rate bars and pubs in Rochdale

Rochdale Observer

Site navigation