Even if he's not in that area, he still knows people and has a chance to talk to people
As Shabir Ahmed, ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, prepares to leave prison after fourteen years, a collision between political will and legal inheritance reveals how the past can bind the present. Andy Burnham, poised to lead the country, has called for Ahmed's deportation to Pakistan, only to find that a law written in 1971 — long before the crimes, long before the reckoning — may make removal impossible. The victims who survived him must now watch the state navigate the gap between what justice feels like and what the law permits.
- Shabir Ahmed, convicted of raping and sexually assaulting girls in Rochdale, is due for release this week despite never having regained public trust or legal standing as a British citizen.
- Andy Burnham has made Ahmed's deportation a public cause, but the Immigration Act of 1971 creates a near-insurmountable barrier because Ahmed arrived before 1973 and had lived in the UK for five years before deportation was ever considered.
- The Justice Minister has quietly acknowledged the reality: retroactively changing legislation to target a single convicted individual would be legally and constitutionally fraught.
- Victims like Ruby, supported by the Maggie Oliver Foundation, say they are frightened for themselves and their children, and that Ahmed's community connections make exclusion zones feel like thin protection.
- Ahmed will be released under strict licence conditions — supervised accommodation and an exclusion zone around Rochdale — but for those he harmed, monitoring is not the same as removal.
Shabir Ahmed, convicted in 2012 of multiple rapes and sexual assaults against girls in Rochdale and sentenced to nineteen years, is due for release this week. His British citizenship was revoked after conviction, leaving him holding only Pakistani nationality — a circumstance that, on the surface, should make deportation possible. Andy Burnham, the Labour politician expected to become prime minister within weeks, has publicly demanded his removal, calling for the home and foreign secretaries to explore every available option.
The obstacle is a legal one, and it is old. Under the Immigration Act of 1971, Ahmed cannot be deported because he arrived in the UK before 1973 and had lived there for at least five years before deportation was ever considered. That combination creates a statutory bar that exists regardless of the severity of his crimes. The Justice Minister acknowledged the difficulty, noting that altering legislation to apply retroactively to someone already convicted would be extremely hard to justify legally.
For the women Ahmed harmed, the legal impasse is not abstract. One victim, known as Ruby, told the BBC she fears for her safety and that of her children. Ahmed is well known across Rochdale, Oldham, and Middleton, and she believes his connections in those communities persist even if he is formally excluded from the areas. Maggie Oliver, the former detective turned whistleblower who now advocates for survivors, said Ruby feels like an afterthought once again.
The Rochdale trial exposed one of Britain's gravest failures of child protection. Ahmed was among nine men convicted of offences against five girls, though investigators believed up to fifty may have been victimised. The sentencing judge described the victims as having been treated as worthless. A subsequent inquiry found serious and repeated institutional failures despite clear warnings.
Ahmed will be released into a framework of strict licence conditions — supervised accommodation and an exclusion zone centred on Rochdale — but he will not be removed from the country. The Home Office says it continues to explore options across government. For those who survived him, the outcome feels like a second failure dressed in the language of process.
Shabir Ahmed is walking out of prison this week. He was convicted fourteen years ago of multiple counts of rape and sexual assault against girls in Rochdale, sentenced to nineteen years, and now his time is nearly up. Andy Burnham, the Labour politician widely expected to become prime minister within weeks, has made a public demand: get him out of the country. The problem is the law may not allow it.
Ahmed holds dual British-Pakistani citizenship, but his British passport was revoked after his 2012 conviction. On the surface, that should make deportation straightforward. The Home Office has said it is committed to removing foreign national offenders and that such people should have no place in Britain. But documents from the Probation Service, shared online, reveal a legal obstacle that may be insurmountable. Under the Immigration Act of 1971, Ahmed cannot be deported to Pakistan because he arrived in the UK before 1973 and had lived in the country for at least five years before deportation was ever considered. That combination of circumstances—early arrival, length of residence—creates a legal bar that applies regardless of his crimes.
Burnham wrote on social media that he wanted "this vile criminal" removed and that he would ask the home and foreign secretaries to "review all possible options." He suggested nothing should be off the table. But Jake Richards, the Justice Minister, acknowledged the reality in an interview: there are long-standing difficulties with deporting foreign national offenders to Pakistan, and in this case, removal seems unlikely. When asked whether the law should be changed to allow Ahmed's deportation, Richards said it would be very difficult to alter legislation to apply retroactively to someone already convicted.
The legal impasse matters most to the people Ahmed harmed. One victim, identified as Ruby, is supported by the Maggie Oliver Foundation, named after the former police detective who became a whistleblower on grooming gang failures. Ruby said she is frightened for her safety and her children's safety. Ahmed is well known in Rochdale, Oldham, and Middleton. Even if he is barred from those areas, she said, he still has connections there, people he can contact. Maggie Oliver told the BBC that Ruby feels she has been treated as an afterthought once again. The Home Office has said Ahmed will face strict conditions: he must live in supervised accommodation around the clock initially and will be confined to an exclusion zone centered on Rochdale.
The Rochdale grooming gang trial in 2012 exposed one of Britain's most serious failures of child protection. Ahmed was one of nine men convicted of offences against five girls, though police believed as many as fifty girls may have been victimized by the gang. The judge at the time said the victims were treated "as though they were worthless and beyond any respect" because they did not belong to the gang's community or religion. A later investigation found that police and local authorities had made "serious multiple failures" despite multiple warnings. Greater Manchester Police insisted there was no racial or cultural element to the crimes, but the damage to trust was already done.
Now, as Ahmed's release approaches, the government faces a collision between public safety concerns and the letter of immigration law. Burnham's intervention signals that the incoming Labour government intends to treat this as a priority, but the 1971 Act stands in the way. The Home Office said it is working across government to explore options, but the Justice Minister's comments suggest those options are narrow. Ahmed will be released into a system of restrictions, monitored and confined, but not removed. For his victims, that outcome feels like a second failure.
Notable Quotes
I'm scared for my safety and my kids' safety. The main ringleader is getting out of prison, who is well known in Rochdale, Oldham and Middleton, so even if he's not in that area, he still knows people and has a chance to talk to people from that area and that makes me unsafe.— Ruby, a victim of the grooming gang
We need to try and work on that and see whether it's possible, but in this case, it seems unlikely.— Justice Minister Jake Richards, on the possibility of deporting Ahmed to Pakistan
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a law from 1971 still control whether someone convicted of these crimes can be deported?
Because immigration law doesn't usually look at what someone did after they arrived—it looks at when they arrived and how long they've been here. Ahmed came before 1973 and stayed five years. That combination locks him in.
So the law was written before anyone imagined this scenario?
Not exactly. It was written to protect people's right to remain after a certain point. But yes, it creates a situation where serious crimes committed decades later don't change the calculation.
Can't they just change the law?
The Justice Minister said it's very difficult to change it retroactively. You'd be rewriting the rules for someone already convicted, which raises its own legal questions.
What happens to Ahmed when he's released?
He goes into supervised housing, can't leave without permission, and can't go near Rochdale. But he's still in the country, and his victims know where he has connections.
Is that enough to keep people safe?
The victims don't think so. One woman said even if he's not physically in her area, he can still contact people there. For her, that's not safety—that's being told to live with the threat.
What does Burnham actually want to happen?
He's asking the government to explore every option. But the Justice Minister basically said there aren't many. Pakistan won't necessarily accept him, and the law won't force the issue.