Warwickshire Police Accused of Advising Against Disclosure of Asylum Status in High‑Profile Rape Case

Download IPFS

Local officials in Warwickshire have raised serious concerns after it emerged that Warwickshire Police advised councillors and senior figures not to reveal the immigration status of two men charged in connection with the alleged rape of a 12‑year‑old girl in Nuneaton. The suspects, Ahmad Mulakhil (23) and Mohammad Kabir (23), have been remanded into custody and are set to appear at Warwick Crown Court on 26 August 2025. Both men face multiple charges: Mulakhil is accused of rape, while Kabir faces charges of kidnapping, strangulation, and aiding and abetting rape.

According to reports in The Times and The Mail on Sunday, Warwickshire Police warned that disclosing either suspect’s background as Afghan nationals living in asylum accommodation could risk “inflaming community tensions”. Despite this, both men were charged while living in houses of multiple occupancy (HMOs) managed by Serco under a Home Office contract. Councillors, including George Finch of Reform UK, have criticised the force for not informing the public sooner, describing the omission as a “cover-up”. Finch has written to both the Home Secretary and the Chief Constable, warning that withholding such information may risk public disorder.

Warwickshire Police responded in a statement that they were following national guidance, which does not require the disclosure of ethnicity or immigration status once a suspect is charged. The force emphasised that they shared relevant details with local officials confidentially, cautioning that premature or broad public disclosure could jeopardise court proceedings.

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, has demanded greater transparency. He asserted that public confidence requires disclosure of defendants’ backgrounds in high-profile cases. Farage also linked the issue to growing public concern about the accommodation of asylum seekers, arguing that undisclosed details contribute to distrust and anxiety. In line with his comments, other senior local politicians from multiple parties have called for clearer public communication and improved community engagement in light of sensitive incidents.

Critics of Warwickshire Police’s decision point to the enduring legacy of the 2000s child grooming scandals and argue that suppressing immigration-related information feeds speculation and mistrust. They claim that transparency is essential for democratic accountability and avoiding suspicion that authorities are withholding inconvenient truths.

Supporters of the police approach, however, highlight that national protocols exist to safeguard legal integrity and prevent prejudicial coverage before trial. They argue that releasing sensitive data prematurely risks undermining fair trial rights, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims and complex criminal allegations.

The case has reignited debate over when public interest should take precedence over confidentiality, and whether national rules strike the right balance. It also draws attention to the tension between public safety, community cohesion, and the rule of law.

As both men await their next appearance at court later this month, senior officials from Warwickshire Council and the police commissioner have pledged to review how sensitive operational disclosures are managed. In the meantime, authorities have encouraged anyone with information related to the case to contact Warwickshire Police or Crimestoppers confidentially.