Labour MPs demand Rochdale grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed is banned from the whole North West and Yorkshire as ministers scramble to try and deport him
Labour MPs are calling for Rochdale grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed to be barred from the whole of North West England and Yorkshire, following his release from prison on 2 July 2026. In a letter to Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, MPs from the areas where Ahmed committed his offences warned that he remains an "unrepentant risk to society" and showed no "meaningful reform" in his attitudes, while government ministers are separately trying to find a way to deport him from Britain.
Ahmed, 73 and known to his victims as "Daddy", served 14 years after his 2012 conviction for rape and sexual offences against girls, some as young as 12. On release he was ordered to live initially at a bail hostel staffed around the clock, wear an electronic GPS tag, stay away from his last known address on Windsor Avenue in Oldham, and observe an exclusion zone barring him from parts of Rochdale. The MPs, including Jim McMahon (Oldham West), want that exclusion zone widened to cover the entire two regions, arguing he continues to pose an ongoing risk to the public.
- Labour MPs want Rochdale abuser Shabir Ahmed banned from North West and Yorkshire.
- Ahmed, 73, was released on 2 July after 14 years.
- Ministers are separately trying to deport him from Britain.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of a wider ban argue that Ahmed's conviction for severe crimes against children, combined with assessments indicating he remains unrepentant and unreformed, justifies comprehensive regional restrictions. They contend that protecting vulnerable people in areas where he operated must be paramount, and that existing monitoring may be insufficient given the gravity of his offences and the reported ongoing risk he poses.
The case against
This perspective acknowledges genuine risks whilst emphasising the importance of legal proportionality and the principle that restrictions should match assessed danger without becoming indefinite punishment beyond sentence completion. Advocates argue that existing conditions—electronic monitoring, bail hostel residence, and targeted exclusion zones—already represent significant constraints, and that blanket regional bans may exceed what is proportionate and legally defensible.