DCSIMG

Man jailed for rape of Burnley teenager

Abdul Basit. (S)

Abdul Basit. (S)

A man from Burnley has been jailed for 34 months after pleading guilty to rape and sexual assault.

Abdul Basit (22), of no fixed abode, raped a teenage girl in Burnley when he was 17, Burnley Crown Court was told.

Basit later sexually assaulted the same teenage girl, also in Burnley, before running off, the court heard.

Lisa Worsley (prosecuting) told the court that Basit had then tried to make amends by sending the girl a card containing £20 as a way of an apology, but it was refused.

The court also heard that Basit was being watched by police and had been served with more than one abduction notice in relation to girls under the age of 16.

Basit had pleaded guilty at court on Friday at the first opportunity.

Andrew Nuttall (defending) said the best mitigation he could put forward was that Basit had pleaded guilty early.

Mr Nuttall said: “He is ashamed of it. Of that, there is no doubt. He is fundamentally aware of what he has done and is fundamentally aware it’s ruined his life.”

Mr Nuttall added that at the time of the offences Basit had been “drinking far too much alcohol”.

Mr Nuttall went on to say that Basit was “cowed by the circumstances” he found himself in and was fully aware of the impact on his victim.

Sentencing, Judge Andrew Woolman said that after the indecent sexual assault, the girl had been left “distressed”.

The Judge described Basit’s actions as “quite serious offending” and that he had some “disturbing attitudes”. He said the police and others were “clearly concerned” as to what Basit might do next.

But Judge Woolman said there was not enough evidence for an extended sentence, and he had to sentence Basit for the rape at the age of committal, at 17.

Basit was given a 10-year sexual offenders prevention order, put on the sex offenders register indefinitely and was handed a three year restraining order against the girl.

The Judge warned Basit that if he had been older at the time of the rape he would be looking at much longer in prison and that the 10-year order was necessary to protect members of the public from serious harm.

 
 
 

Back to the top of the page