HUSSAN HUSSAIN FROM TELFORD CONVICTED FOR REPEATEDLY VISITING VICTIM'S WORKPLACE IN TELFORD
In July 2015, a disturbing case unfolded in Telford involving Hussan Hussain, a 29-year-old man residing on Prince Edward Crescent, Malinslee.Hussain was found guilty of multiple breaches of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) that had been previously imposed upon him by Shrewsbury Crown Court in 2012.
The order was issued after Hussain was convicted of engaging in sexual activities with a 13-year-old girl, a serious offense that led to strict restrictions on his interactions with the victim.
According to the prosecution, Mrs.
Harminder Hayre, Hussain had repeatedly violated the terms of his SOPO by visiting the workplace of the young woman he was ordered to stay away from.
The victim was employed at a fast food restaurant in Telford, where Hussain was seen parking outside the establishment on multiple occasions, engaging in behavior that caused her significant distress.
Witnesses reported that Hussain would sit in his vehicle, staring at her while she was working, which was a clear breach of the court order designed to protect her from further contact.
Mrs.
Hayre explained that Hussain had received the SOPO following his 2012 conviction, which included a ban on any form of contact—direct or indirect—with the victim.
Despite this, the victim recognized Hussain in November 2014 when he was at her workplace, as she was giving him change at the drive-through window.
She believed at the time that it was merely a coincidence, and no charges were filed for that particular incident.
However, the prosecution presented evidence of three additional instances where Hussain returned to the restaurant, parking nearby and staring at the young woman, causing her to feel intimidated and unsafe.
On the final occasion, witnesses observed Hussain laughing with his wife and deliberately pointing at the victim, further demonstrating his awareness of her presence and his apparent intent to intimidate her.
The magistrates in Telford concluded that Hussain would have recognized the victim during the first encounter, despite his defense team’s argument that she had changed significantly over the years due to growing up.
The court also noted that Hussain, a married father of two, had not made any comments about the offenses during police interviews conducted on February 5, which the magistrates considered an adverse inference against him.
Hussain’s legal representative, Mr.
Shakeel Ahmed, claimed that his client had been visiting the restaurant regularly with his family and that he had not recognized the girl during these visits.
He further stated that Hussain ceased all visits once police informed him that the victim worked there.
Hussain also stated that he was aware of where the victim lived and could have visited her there if he had intended to break the court order, implying that his actions were not malicious.
During the trial, the defense argued that the victim’s account was inconsistent, noting that she had broken down multiple times and requested breaks during her testimony.
The court decided to adjourn sentencing until July 29 to consider the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case, emphasizing the seriousness of breaches involving court orders designed to protect victims from harassment and intimidation.
