Child abductor sentence does not “demand” increase

Lord Justice Davis said the three girls’ parents were driven “frantic” when their children failed to return for the night.

It was only the next morning that they learnt how Vejahuin Ghorbani had driven them back to his home after accosting them in a local park.

Although none of the girls had been harmed or sexually molested, Ghorbani had “plied them with drink and made verbal sexual advances”, London's Appeal Court heard.

He gave the girls — two of them aged 11 and the other 13 — sweets and vodka, resulting in one of his victims being sick outside his home.

Ghorbani’s abduction of the girls came after he began chatting with them as he sat on a park bench in September last year.

He asked them to get into his car after telling the oldest girl he “fancied her” and “spoke of s****ing her”, Lord Justice Davis explained.

“The three girls got into his car and no physical force was used," he added.

Once at his flat, Ghorbani repeatedly asked one of the youngsters to “come and shag”, also pestering all three about “giving blowjobs”.

But no sexual activity in fact occurred, and the girls slipped away unscathed the next morning.

Ghorbani (37), of Park Mount, Clifton, was caged for three years at Sheffield Crown Court in February.

He admitted two counts of abduction and one of trafficking for sexual exploitation.

But his case reached the Appeal Court as the Attorney-General, Jeremy Wright QC, urged three judges to up his sentence.

Sarah Whitehouse, for Mr Wright, noted that the children were “detained” for 12 hours and the terror endured by their waiting families.

The sexual comments made were “plainly indicative of what he wished and intended would happen”, she added.

But Lord Justice Davis said Ghorbani had received a clear indication from the trial judge that his sentence would not exceed four years.

The judge, sitting with Mr Justice Cooke and Sir Geoffrey Grigson, agreed that three years was lenient.

But it was not so “out of line” that it demanded an increase, he ruled.

The judge concluded: “It is easy to imagine the feelings of the parents when they discovered their children had not returned.

“Nevertheless, we think it would be quite wrong for this court to intervene”.