Local officials have raised concerns about a lack of transparency after it emerged that Warwickshire Police advised councillors not to disclose the immigration status of two men remanded in custody over the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton, citing fears of inflaming community tensions.
The guidance, reportedly issued to avoid inflaming community tensions, has prompted renewed warnings about the impact on democratic accountability when the full range of consequences of immigration policy are obscured from public view.
Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, was arrested on Saturday 26 July and charged the following day with two counts of rape. He appeared before Coventry Magistrates’ Court on Monday 28 July and was remanded into custody.
Four days later, Mohammad Kabir, also 23, was arrested in Nuneaton and charged with kidnap, strangulation, and aiding and abetting the rape of a girl under 13. He appeared before magistrates on Saturday 2 August and was also remanded into custody. Both men are due to appear at Warwick Crown Court on 26 August.
Although Warwickshire Police issued public statements following both men’s arrests, neither referred to the suspects’ immigration status. According to a report in the Mail on Sunday, both men are Afghan nationals who had been living in neighbouring houses of multiple occupation on adjoining streets in Nuneaton, each reportedly accommodating several asylum seekers. Serco manages the properties under a £1.9 billion contract with the UK Home Office to house asylum seekers nationwide.
Councillors from the Tory party, as well as Labour and Reform – which controls Warwickshire County Council – said they were given little information about the incident despite widespread local interest, and blamed police for the lack of disclosure. However, a source told the Mail on Sunday that certain councillors and officials had in fact been informed by police about the incident, and were advised not to reveal to the public the suspects’ asylum background on the grounds that it might inflame community tensions.
Councillor George Finch, who represents Reform UK, confirmed that he had written to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, and the Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police, Alex Franklin-Smith, to request clarity on the immigration status of the accused.
In a statement defending its stance, Warwickshire Police said: “Where relevant, sensitive information around locations, details of the crime and policing activity to catch offenders can be shared, with a warning that this is sensitive or confidential information and disclosure by those being briefed could affect future court hearings.” The force added: “Once someone is charged with an offence, we follow national guidance. This guidance does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status.”
In recent months, other asylum seekers in taxpayer-funded accommodation have been charged with serious sexual offences across the country. In some cases, local politicians have accused councils and police of a “cover-up”, claiming incidents were kept quiet, as in Nuneaton, to avoid potential unrest.
This pattern of institutional nervousness around immigration and multiculturalism, particularly when sexual violence is perpetrated by members of ethnic or religious minorities, has been documented since at least the 2000s.
A 2025 Home Office audit of group-based child sexual exploitation, led by Baroness Louise Casey, found that victims were often failed by professionals who feared being labelled racist or were unsure how to navigate cultural sensitivities. Based on data from three police forces, the audit identified clear over-representation among suspects of Asian and Pakistani-heritage men. Casey cited “examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist or raising community tensions”.
The audit’s findings echoed earlier investigations.
In 2014, the Jay Inquiry into child sexual exploitation by predominantly Pakistani-heritage grooming gangs in Rotherham found that girls as young as 11 were “raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten and intimidated”. There were also examples of children “who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone”. The report recorded one senior police officer saying: “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out.”
The following year, a statutory inspection of Rotherham Council found that “so-called political correctness” had “cast its shadow” over decision-making. One official said the council was “terrified of [the impact on] community cohesion”. Another added: “Asian men [were] very powerful, and the white British are very mindful of racism and frightened of racism allegations so there is no robust challenge.” Across the town, staff were pressured to “suppress, keep quiet or cover up” concerns about grooming gangs.
In 2022, the Independent Inquiry into Telford Child Sexual Exploitation, chaired by Tom Crowther KC, concluded that there had been “a nervousness about race… bordering on a reluctance to investigate crimes committed by what was described as the ‘Asian’ community’”. The report also noted “a feeling that certain individuals in the Asian community were not targeted for investigation into child exploitation because it would have been too ‘politically incorrect’”. Between 2006 and 2008, senior managers expressed concern that raising allegations about grooming gangs could provoke a “race riot”.
Even the Home Secretary has acknowledged the risks of suppressing uncomfortable truths. Responding to the publication of Baroness Casey’s audit in a statement to the House of Commons, Yvette Cooper said: “We cannot and must not shy away from these findings.” Quoting Casey with approval, she added that “ignoring the issues, not examining and exposing them to the light, allows the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities”.
Yet it remains doubtful whether such candour can take hold while public officials continue to suppress information – not because it is legally sensitive, but for fear of inflaming ‘community tensions’.
