🔴 Mum’s Fury: Rapist Migrant with 11 Convictions in UK?

Amin Abedi Mofrad, 35, was convicted by a unanimous jury verdict at Oxford Crown Court on one count of rape and one count of sexual assault by penetration, following an attack on the teenager as she waited to be collected from the Westgate Shopping Centre on 14 February last year.

The court heard how Mofrad approached the girl, declared she could be his ‘sex doll’, and dragged her into a nearby alleyway where the assault took place.

Sentencing him on Thursday, the judge imposed an extended licence period of three years, reflecting the severity of the offences and Mofrad’s prior criminal record.

Detective Constable Bethany Liversidge of Oxford CID praised the victim’s courage in supporting the investigation, noting that Thames Valley Police’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls had been instrumental in securing the conviction.

She highlighted the role of Project Vigilant, an initiative aimed at preventing such crimes through intelligence gathering on predatory behaviour. The victim and her family have requested privacy amid the proceedings.

Mofrad’s path to the UK began when he arrived via small boat in 2023, shortly after which he faced arrest for an alleged sexual assault that was later discontinued due to insufficient evidence. His criminal background in Germany included 11 convictions between 2014 and 2019, encompassing four assault offences and instances of actual bodily harm.

Additionally, the court was informed of a conviction in January of last year for stealing a woman’s bag and silver chain. The rape came to light when reported to Thames Valley Police on 7 April, leading to Mofrad’s initial arrest and release on bail.

He was rearrested on 13 December after new evidence emerged from his mobile phone, charged on 3 February this year, and remanded in custody. In the wake of the verdict, the victim’s mother has directed pointed questions at the Home Office, asserting that inadequate checks enabled Mofrad’s presence in the community despite his documented risks.

In a letter to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, she described the enduring trauma inflicted on her daughter, emphasising that no child should bear such a burden. Speaking publicly, the mother demanded clarity on why Mofrad was permitted entry, insisting that prior verification of his German convictions should have flagged him as a danger.

She argued that assessments ought to occur upon arrival, not retrospectively after an offence has been committed. This case underscores broader legal and policy debates surrounding asylum seekers with criminal histories, particularly the mechanisms for international data sharing on convictions.

Under UK immigration rules, asylum claims can proceed even with prior offences, but serious criminality may bar protection if it poses a threat to the community. The European Union’s framework for exchanging criminal records via the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) allows member states—including Germany—to share data, yet post-Brexit arrangements rely on bilateral agreements and Interpol channels.

Critics contend that gaps in real-time intelligence sharing, especially for non-EU nationals like Mofrad, expose vulnerabilities in border screening. Home Office guidance stipulates risk assessments for small-boat arrivals, but resource constraints and evidential thresholds often complicate deportations or detentions.

Legal analysts note that while the 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits refoulement to persecution, Article 1F permits exclusion for those with serious non-political crimes abroad.

In Mofrad’s instance, the absence of immediate deportation following his 2023 arrest raises questions about evidentiary standards and prosecutorial discretion.

Thames Valley Police’s awareness of his German record and prior UK allegation did not prevent his release into the community, highlighting potential lapses in multi-agency coordination.

As sentencing concludes, this conviction may fuel calls for enhanced pre-entry vetting, including mandatory fingerprint checks against international databases.

Yet, balancing humanitarian obligations with public safety remains a contentious area in immigration law, with ongoing reviews of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 aiming to tighten controls on irregular arrivals.

The mother’s intervention amplifies these concerns, urging accountability from policymakers to prevent similar oversights. While the judicial process has delivered justice in this case, it invites reflection on systemic safeguards to mitigate risks from unchecked entrants.