MOHAMMED ULLAH SENTENCED TO 13 YEARS FOR CHILD ABUSE IN LUTON

In a significant legal development, Mohammed Ullah, a 57-year-old man from Westbourne Road in Luton, Bedfordshire, has seen his prison sentence for heinous crimes against young girls increased after an appeal by the Crown. Ullah was originally sentenced to nine years in prison after being convicted of seven counts of indecent assault by a jury at St Albans Crown Court on February 23 of this year. However, the severity of his crimes and the inadequacy of the initial sentence prompted the Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC to intervene, leading to a review by the Court of Appeal.

Today, a panel comprising Lord Justice Fulford, Mr. Justice Teare, and Judge Melbourne Inman QC convened at London's Criminal Appeal Court to reconsider Ullah’s punishment. Their verdict was clear: the original nine-year sentence was unduly lenient and did not reflect the gravity of the offenses committed. As a result, Ullah’s prison term was extended to a total of 13 years, marking a substantial increase in his incarceration period.

The court heard disturbing details about Ullah’s abuse, which began when one of his victims was merely five years old. One particularly egregious incident took place in a public swimming bath, where witnesses observed the assault but, for reasons not specified, the incident was not reported at the time. Lord Justice Fulford emphasized that the young girl was unaware that what was happening to her was wrong, which contributed to her not reporting the abuse later. The court also noted that Ullah showed no remorse for his actions; instead, he harbored resentment towards his victims and even blamed them for his own predicament.

Ullah’s legal representatives argued that his sentence should remain unchanged, citing his advanced age and health issues, including type one diabetes and high blood pressure, which they claimed warranted a more lenient approach. Nonetheless, the judges dismissed these arguments, with Lord Justice Fulford stating that the original sentence was “significantly too short” and that a more appropriate punishment would be a 13-year term. This decision underscores the judiciary’s stance on protecting vulnerable children and ensuring that offenders receive appropriate punishment for their crimes.