Jail for Leicester sex attack

A man from Burton on Trent has been jailed for seven years and three months for attempted rape and sexual assault on a young woman looking for a safe taxi ride in Leicester.

Ghulan Mohammed, 36, targeted the young woman in the city centre. He had been driving around Leicester looking for sex workers and noticed the victim on her own and severely incapacitated through drink. When she asked if he was a taxi driver, he persuaded her to get into his car. He then drove her to a series of remote locations, sexual assaulted her and tried to rape her, before returning to the city centre.

The victim was clearly in significant distress. She tried to escape him at a petrol station, before Mohammed took her to a hotel car park, trying to persuade her to go into a room with him. Her friends traced her through a location app and found her Mohammed’s car. She was muddy and bruised, and Mohammed had no trousers on.

Despite the victim having very little recollection of what had happened because of how much she had drunk, prosecutors built a case around Mohammed’s actions and behaviour and a translator app the victim had been using, as she only spoke Mandarin.

Mohammed was charged with five separate sexual offences, and following a week-long trial at Leicester Crown Court, he was found guilty of four counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted rape. He was also found guilty of theft and four counts of fraud, for stealing her bank card and using during and after he attacked her.

Maimuna Bappa from the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Ghulan Mohammed subjected his victim to a terrifying ordeal, targeting her and preying on her because she was vulnerable through drink.

“The victim had very little recollection of what had happened, other than that she was being attacked and was determined not to give in to Mohammed’s sexual advances. Ghulan Mohammed can have been in no doubt that she was not consenting to any sexual activity, but continued to assault her, trying to get her into a hotel room and even following her when she had been recovered by her friends.

“The picture of these events was clear – that this is an extremely dangerous sexual predator and that the victim has shown extraordinary courage to resist him during the attack and to give what help she can to the investigation and prosecution.”

Building the case

When the victim was found by her friends in Ghulan Mohammed’s car, it was clear that something untoward had happened. The victim’s underwear was only on one leg, despite her wearing trousers and Mohammed himself was in a state of undress. However, the evidence for criminal sexual activity was not initially clear. The victim had very little recollection of what had happened and there was limited DNA evidence to show sexual activity had taken place.

The case against Mohammed was built through examining his conduct and behaviour. In the first instance, prosecutors established and were informed that he had no connection to Leicester and lived in Burton on Trent, so had no reason to be in the city.

CCTV and automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) traced his movements across Leicester and found he had been focused on areas more likely to be frequented by sex workers. This was evidence that he had come to the city to look for a sexual encounter.

CCTV of Mohammed and the victim showed that she was intoxicated and was unwilling to get into the car with Mohammed. This was also the case when he stopped at the petrol station and the victim tried to get help from staff.

A significant source of evidence was the translator app used by the victim to try to communicate. This recorded sections of conversation between them, including the victim asking Mohammed if he was a taxi driver, her screaming at him to stop and asking for her clothes, as well as responses from the defendant of a sexual nature.

Pieced together, this was all evidence that the victim had been vulnerable, subjected to an attack and had been actively resisting any sexual activity. Ghulan Mohammed gave an untrue account that there had been a consensual sexual encounter, but it was clear that the victim was not consenting.