I believe Judge Nirmal Shant made a big mistake when she decided that a jury should not be told a 28-year-old Pakistani man facing two counts of rape was an asylum seeker.
The Press were forbidden from reporting his immigration status. Wholly wrong.
She decided that reporting the information could prejudice Sheraz Malik’s case. That is tosh. He either raped that vulnerable 18-year-old girl or he didn’t.
The fact that he came to the UK in the boot of a car is not the issue. It’s part of who he is. In the same way as if he had been an electrician or a financier.
The jury took just two hours at Birmingham Crown Court to decide Malik was guilty of the sex attack.
They heard he took turns with his Afghan friend (he’s now on the run), raping the teenager before asking her: ‘’Did you enjoy that?’’ How awful was that?
The man I raise a glass to is Lee Anderson, the Reform MP for Ashfield, the area where the rape took place. Last year, he refused to bow at the knee to either the police or the judge and issued a statement saying the accused was an asylum seeker.
His point was that the knowledge was important to residents in Ashfield, vitally important if you had daughters. Further, how on earth was it going to adversely affect his trial?
Perhaps we might receive more of an explanation from Judge Shant now that the guilty verdict has been brought in.
After Anderson’s tweet saying the facts should be revealed, the locals hit the streets and supported their MP. Bizarrely, it was then decided, I presume by Judge Shant that Malik’s trial should be moved from Nottingham Crown Court to Birmingham so he could get a ‘’fair’’ trial - there was nothing ‘’fair’’ about his attack.
It should never have fallen on Lee Anderson to unmask a Pakistani rapist asylum seeker - Kelvin MacKenzie
|Getty Images
During cross-examination at Birmingham, Malik, who had stayed at a number of European countries before landing in the UK, was asked how he got here.
He protested that the question wasn’t relevant, and the new judge, Simon Ash, intervened and agreed with Malik. So the jury didn’t know, but the jurors weren’t stupid, and when he refused to answer the question, I suspect they knew in their hearts he was an asylum seeker.
So, both the police and two judges wanted to stop you from knowing that Malik was an illegal during his trial. There is, in my view, no justification for that decision.
And now the case is over, I want to understand precisely why they think stopping the Press reporting was going to damage Malik’s case.
I imagine they might say that asylum seekers are accused of many crimes – rapes being among them – so juries have a poor view of illegal migrants. I would love them to say that.
The answer is not to stop the public from knowing the truth, but to stop these people from coming to our shores.
Our daughters would certainly be safer. And it may come as a shock to the legal system, but it’s the job of the Press to reveal uncomfortable truths.
It’s regrettable that Anderson felt he should take down his X post last year. I would have liked to see him taking on these Judges in a courtroom. However, I am grateful somebody is speaking up for the silent majority.
Too many in positions of authority speak up for the illegals washing up at Dover or arriving in the back of lorries or cars like Malik.
He will be sentenced at a later date, while his victim will have a lifetime of torment thanks to him.
More From GB News