ADIL ABOULKADIR FROM DARTFORD AND DUBAI FACES JUSTICE DELAY IN UK CRIMINAL CASES
| Red Rose Database
Dartford Rapist
In a case that has drawn significant attention, Adil Aboulkadir, a man originally from Dartford, Kent, and with connections to Dubai, is currently embroiled in a legal battle over the delay in his parole hearing following his conviction for serious sexual offenses. Aboulkadir, aged 38, was convicted in May 2008 at Maidstone Crown Court of multiple charges related to the sexual abuse of teenage girls, and his case has since become a focal point in discussions about the treatment of dangerous offenders within the UK justice system.
Aboulkadir was among five men, all refugees from Darfur, who were found guilty of attacking and abusing girls aged 13 and 14. The trial, which lasted five weeks, resulted in the sentencing of all five men, with each receiving a four-year prison term. Aboulkadir, however, received an indeterminate sentence for public protection, with a minimum term of four years, after being convicted of one count of rape and three counts of sexual activity with a minor. The other men, Jumaa Saleh, Mohamud Jimale, Diwt Kfle Akal, and Mahder Zeregergis, were each sentenced to four years in prison for their respective roles in the offenses.
During the sentencing, Judge Martin Joy emphasized the breach of trust involved, stating, “You came to this country to seek political asylum. No doubt, you came to this country because you regarded it as a safe country. However, by your conduct, this country becomes less safe.” The court also highlighted the substantial costs incurred by taxpayers, noting that providing interpreters for each of the accused cost a minimum of £25,000 per individual.
Following his conviction, Aboulkadir was detained in an immigration center while efforts were made to deport him to Sudan, a process that has become complicated due to ongoing legal challenges. His case has now taken a new turn as he has initiated legal proceedings against the UK government, specifically targeting Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. Aboulkadir claims that his human rights have been violated due to the delay in his parole hearing, which he argues was unlawfully postponed beyond the statutory minimum period.
According to court documents, Aboulkadir’s legal team, led by barrister Nathaniel Wade, contends that the delay in scheduling his parole review constitutes a breach of Article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a speedy review of detention. The case reveals that the initial referral to the Parole Board was made in August 2011, yet the first hearing was not scheduled until December 2012. Further delays ensued, with the hearing ultimately taking place in September 2013, after postponements caused by the absence of an interpreter and other procedural issues.
Wade argued that the 16-month delay after the expiration of Aboulkadir’s four-year tariff in May 2012 was unjustified and infringed upon his rights. He criticized the Parole Board’s failure to act promptly, citing inaction, slow processing, and inadequate preparation as contributing factors. The legal challenge seeks a declaration that the delay was unlawful, along with damages to compensate for the frustration and anxiety caused by the prolonged detention.
Representing the government, Julian Blake, defended the delay, asserting that the challenge was filed too late and that the matter was now 'academic' since the Parole Board had cleared Aboulkadir for release in September of the previous year. Despite this, Aboulkadir remains detained in an immigration facility, with ongoing efforts by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to deport him back to Sudan. His legal team is also pursuing a referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to challenge the validity of his convictions.
Judge Charles George QC, presiding over the case, acknowledged the complexity of the situation. He ruled that the claim was neither too late nor purely academic and granted permission for a full judicial review hearing. The judge emphasized that the case under Article 5.4 was arguable and would be examined in detail at an upcoming hearing, the date of which has yet to be scheduled.
Meanwhile, the broader context of this case is rooted in the initial sentencing of five Sudanese men, including Aboulkadir, in February 2008, after being found guilty of sexual offenses against teenage girls in North Kent. The trial, which lasted five weeks, resulted in a total of 20 years of imprisonment among the five men. The judge at the time, Judge Martin Joy, criticized their conduct, stating, “You came to this country to seek political asylum. No doubt, you came to this country because you regarded it as a safe country. However, by your conduct, this country becomes less safe.” The case also highlighted the significant costs involved in providing legal and translation services for the defendants, with each interpreter costing at least £25,000.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case of Adil Aboulkadir remains a stark reminder of the challenges faced by the UK justice system in balancing public safety, legal rights, and immigration issues, especially in cases involving serious criminal offenses committed by foreign nationals.
Aboulkadir was among five men, all refugees from Darfur, who were found guilty of attacking and abusing girls aged 13 and 14. The trial, which lasted five weeks, resulted in the sentencing of all five men, with each receiving a four-year prison term. Aboulkadir, however, received an indeterminate sentence for public protection, with a minimum term of four years, after being convicted of one count of rape and three counts of sexual activity with a minor. The other men, Jumaa Saleh, Mohamud Jimale, Diwt Kfle Akal, and Mahder Zeregergis, were each sentenced to four years in prison for their respective roles in the offenses.
During the sentencing, Judge Martin Joy emphasized the breach of trust involved, stating, “You came to this country to seek political asylum. No doubt, you came to this country because you regarded it as a safe country. However, by your conduct, this country becomes less safe.” The court also highlighted the substantial costs incurred by taxpayers, noting that providing interpreters for each of the accused cost a minimum of £25,000 per individual.
Following his conviction, Aboulkadir was detained in an immigration center while efforts were made to deport him to Sudan, a process that has become complicated due to ongoing legal challenges. His case has now taken a new turn as he has initiated legal proceedings against the UK government, specifically targeting Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. Aboulkadir claims that his human rights have been violated due to the delay in his parole hearing, which he argues was unlawfully postponed beyond the statutory minimum period.
According to court documents, Aboulkadir’s legal team, led by barrister Nathaniel Wade, contends that the delay in scheduling his parole review constitutes a breach of Article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a speedy review of detention. The case reveals that the initial referral to the Parole Board was made in August 2011, yet the first hearing was not scheduled until December 2012. Further delays ensued, with the hearing ultimately taking place in September 2013, after postponements caused by the absence of an interpreter and other procedural issues.
Wade argued that the 16-month delay after the expiration of Aboulkadir’s four-year tariff in May 2012 was unjustified and infringed upon his rights. He criticized the Parole Board’s failure to act promptly, citing inaction, slow processing, and inadequate preparation as contributing factors. The legal challenge seeks a declaration that the delay was unlawful, along with damages to compensate for the frustration and anxiety caused by the prolonged detention.
Representing the government, Julian Blake, defended the delay, asserting that the challenge was filed too late and that the matter was now 'academic' since the Parole Board had cleared Aboulkadir for release in September of the previous year. Despite this, Aboulkadir remains detained in an immigration facility, with ongoing efforts by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to deport him back to Sudan. His legal team is also pursuing a referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to challenge the validity of his convictions.
Judge Charles George QC, presiding over the case, acknowledged the complexity of the situation. He ruled that the claim was neither too late nor purely academic and granted permission for a full judicial review hearing. The judge emphasized that the case under Article 5.4 was arguable and would be examined in detail at an upcoming hearing, the date of which has yet to be scheduled.
Meanwhile, the broader context of this case is rooted in the initial sentencing of five Sudanese men, including Aboulkadir, in February 2008, after being found guilty of sexual offenses against teenage girls in North Kent. The trial, which lasted five weeks, resulted in a total of 20 years of imprisonment among the five men. The judge at the time, Judge Martin Joy, criticized their conduct, stating, “You came to this country to seek political asylum. No doubt, you came to this country because you regarded it as a safe country. However, by your conduct, this country becomes less safe.” The case also highlighted the significant costs involved in providing legal and translation services for the defendants, with each interpreter costing at least £25,000.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case of Adil Aboulkadir remains a stark reminder of the challenges faced by the UK justice system in balancing public safety, legal rights, and immigration issues, especially in cases involving serious criminal offenses committed by foreign nationals.