Two men allegedly photographed their own horrific sexual assault on a 12-year-old girl during a daylight attack in a quiet residential cul-de-sac, a jury at Warwick Crown Court has been told in disturbing opening statements.
Alleged Abduction and Repeated Assault
Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, stands accused of abducting the schoolgirl from a street in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, on July 22 last year before subjecting her to multiple rapes and sexual assaults. Prosecutors allege he took photographs of the attack as it occurred, capturing evidence of his alleged crimes.
Earlier Attempted Abduction
The court heard how the ordeal began earlier that same day when Mohammad Kabir, 24, allegedly approached the same girl near a park in the town. Prosecution barrister Daniel Oscroft told jurors how Kabir put his hands around the child's neck and attempted to force her to accompany him.
'The prosecution suggests that the only logical conclusion for why he wanted to take her away was for some sexual purpose,' Mr Oscroft told the court. 'What possible alternative could there have been?'
Second Approach and Cul-de-sac Attack
Although the girl refused to go with Kabir, jurors were told that Mulakhil approached her later the same day. According to the prosecution, he talked to her and led her to Cheverel Place, a secluded residential cul-de-sac, where the alleged sexual assaults occurred.
'He talked to her and led her away to a secluded cul-de-sac, Cheverel Place, where he raped her, sexually assaulted her and took indecent images of her,' Mr Oscroft stated in his opening address.
Defendants' Denials and Evidence
Mulakhil, who has no fixed address, has admitted one charge of oral rape but denies:
- Two other counts of rape
- Abducting a child
- Two counts of sexual assault
- Taking indecent photographs of a child
Kabir, also of no fixed abode, denies:
- Attempting to take a child
- Intentional strangulation
- Committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence
Victim's Immediate Disclosure
The court heard how the girl was eventually found in a local park after the alleged attack, where she immediately told an adult present: 'He raped me.' Mr Oscroft described her as appearing distressed and apparently scanning the bushes while asking where 'he' had gone and saying 'he' is coming for her.
'She immediately disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted,' the prosecutor told jurors. 'While she didn't go into the level of significant detail that a later video interview would reveal, it was clear at that stage that something significant had happened.'
Forensic and Digital Evidence
The prosecution presented compelling forensic evidence to the court, revealing that Mulakhil's DNA was found on the girl's neck and inside her shorts. Additionally, investigators discovered indecent images and non-indecent videos of Mulakhil with the girl on his mobile phone.
CCTV footage captured Mulakhil and the alleged victim talking, with the girl reportedly telling him she was 19 years old. 'It was obvious she was not 19, she was a young child,' Mr Oscroft told the jury. 'It was such an obvious lie. It's clear that from Mr Mulakhil's reaction, he didn't believe her.'
Defendants' Accounts Challenged
During police interviews, Mulakhil accepted meeting the girl twice on July 22 but claimed he believed she looked in her twenties and that any sexual activity was consensual. The prosecution strongly contests this assertion.
'The prosecution say that it would be obvious to anyone that she was a very young, vulnerable child. She was obviously immature,' Mr Oscroft stated.
Kabir provided a prepared statement denying all allegations when interviewed by police. When confronted with CCTV, phone evidence and images placing him with Mulakhil on multiple days, including the day after the alleged offences, he initially denied but ultimately accepted appearing in some footage while declining to provide explanations.
Communication and Consent Claims
Both defendants were assisted by interpreters during proceedings. Regarding Mulakhil's account, Mr Oscroft told the court: 'He repeatedly insisted that the girl followed him voluntarily, denying that he ever forced, threatened, tricked or restrained her.'
The defendant claimed communication difficulties due to language barriers and said most interaction occurred through body language. He maintained that he never abducted her and that she came with him of her own choice.
The trial continues at Warwick Crown Court with both defendants remanded in custody as proceedings unfold.
