ZABAIR MAHMOOD FROM ALUM ROCK, BIRMINGHAM FAILS TO OVERTURN CAMERA BAN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL

In October 2012, a disturbing case involving Zabair Mahmood, a resident of Alum Rock in Birmingham, reached the courts as he sought to challenge a strict restriction placed upon him following his heinous crimes. Mahmood, aged 40 and living on Parkfield Road in Alum Rock, had previously been convicted of serious sexual offenses against minors and was subjected to a comprehensive ban on owning or using cameras after his release from prison.

The case drew significant attention due to the nature of Mahmood’s offenses, which included the abuse of two young boys aged 12 and the covert filming of children as young as two years old. The police investigation uncovered a disturbing collection of illicit videos stored at his home, revealing a pattern of predatory behavior that spanned several years.

At Birmingham Crown Court on May 17, 2007, Mahmood was sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, a sentence that is nearly equivalent to life imprisonment and reserved for the most dangerous offenders. As part of his sentence, a sexual offences prevention order was imposed, explicitly prohibiting him from owning or using any camera devices. This measure was intended to prevent further offenses and to protect the community from potential harm.

Mahmood challenged the terms of this prevention order, arguing before a panel comprising Lord Justice Richards, Mr. Justice Openshaw, and Judge Neil Ford QC that the restriction was unfair. His primary contention was that the ban on owning a camera would effectively prevent him from possessing any mobile phone, as nearly all modern phones are equipped with camera functions. He claimed this restriction was unreasonable and infringed upon his rights.

The prosecution, represented by Gareth Patterson, emphasized the severity and repeated nature of Mahmood’s offenses. He pointed out that the evidence demonstrated Mahmood’s repeated and covert filming of children, including infants as young as two, and his creation of compilation videos that also contained content related to paedophilia and child murders. The evidence underscored the dangerous and distorted mindset of the offender, which justified the continuation of the prevention order.

In response, Mahmood’s legal team argued that the prevention order was overly broad and unfairly restrictive. They highlighted that the ban on owning a camera would also bar him from owning a mobile phone, which was an essential communication device. They contended that such a restriction was unreasonable and disproportionate.

However, the court dismissed Mahmood’s appeal. Lord Justice Richards stated that the challenge was filed too late and that the arguments presented were not suitable for consideration at this advanced stage of the legal process. The court reaffirmed the importance of the prevention order in safeguarding the community from a convicted sex offender with a history of disturbing behavior.