Ex-lord’s child sex abuse trial halted after case ‘sabotaged’

Prosecutors’ failure to share key evidence means Lord Ahmed of Rotherham would not have had a fair hearing, judge rules

Nazir Ahmed, who was previously Lord Ahmed of Rotherham (PA)

The child sex abuse trial of a former lord has been halted after a judge declared that the way evidence had been disclosed to the defence team had effectively "sabotaged" the chance of a fair hearing.

Nazir Ahmed – who was Lord Ahmed of Rotherham until he resigned as a peer last year – is accused of sexually abusing a boy and girl when he himself was a teenager in the early 1970s.

But court proceedings have been brought to an abrupt stop amid concerns vital information was only passed to the 63-year-old’s legal team after the trial had started.

Judge Jeremy Richardson said he was "shocked and appalled" that evidence had not been supplied to the defence earlier despite the allegations being first made five years ago, the alleged crime dating back almost 50 years and the trial itself being postponed for nearly 12 months due to coronavirus.

He said: "This disgraceful situation has sabotaged this trial and caused it to abort. I do not use this adjective lightly."

The judge made the ruling – which would effectively end the case – two weeks ago but reporting restrictions were only lifted on Tuesday after prosecutors lodged an appeal against the decision.

Mr Ahmed resigned from the House of Lords after conduct committee report recommended he be expelled last year. The report found he had breached the code of conduct "by failing to act on his personal honour".

He went on trial at Sheffield Crown Court last month after denying two counts of attempting to rape a girl under 16, indecent assault of a boy under 14, and rape of a boy under 16. All alleged crimes are said to have taken place in Rotherham in South Yorkshire in the early 1970s when Mr Ahmed himself would have been aged between just 14 and 17.

His brothers Mohammed Farouq, 70 and Mohammed Tariq, 65, also from Rotherham, were accused of indecent assault of a boy under 14, but were deemed unfit to plead and faced a trial of the facts during the same proceedings.

Judge Richardson said he was "extremely concerned" about apparent failures by the police to follow up reasonable lines of inquiry, saying the case had been handled "as if we're in a different era".

He said he had always "harboured grave misgiving about the wisdom" of the prosecution due to the antiquity of the allegations and vagueness of what was alleged.

But he said this was not the reason he took the decision to stay the proceedings. Despite the prosecution's "massive and fundamental failure" to stick to disclosure rules, he said it was normal to let them "put it right and have another go".

But he concluded the case must be stopped in light of a number of other factors, including what he saw as the weakness of the prosecution case.

Responding, a Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said: "We are appealing this decision and have explained this to the two complainants. If our appeal is successful we will seek another trial of the defendants.

"In the meantime we will consider the judgment and ensure that lessons are learned from the issues in this case.”