SOUTH SHIELDS RAPIST’S BID FOR FREEDOM IS REJECTED
A violent sex offender who contended that a single rape did not classify him as a threat to the public has lost his attempt to secure early release from prison.Zeeyad Hamadi received an indefinite prison term for public protection at Newcastle Crown Court in December 2006 following his conviction for a brutal assault on a 23-year-old mother from Gateshead.
The 30-year-old man from South Shields challenged his sentence in court, arguing that committing one rape alone should not deem him dangerous.
Hamadi hoped that the judges at the Court of Appeal in London would recognize that indefinite sentences for public protection are sometimes awarded to offenders who are not genuinely dangerous.
However, his appeal was rejected yesterday by Lord Justice Hughes, who noted that Hamadi had already appealed his sentence once and was not entitled to a second review.
Hamadi, residing on Highfield Road, carried out his assault after offering a lift to a woman walking home from a night out in Newcastle.
He subjected her to an hour-long ordeal in January 2006, tying her up and repeatedly raping her in the back of his van.
The victim, who has a young daughter, was approached by Hamadi as she walked along Railway Street near the Centre for Life after becoming separated from her boyfriend.
Vulnerable and distressed, she accepted his help, but he then took her to wasteland, restrained her, and assaulted her despite her screams.
He later abandoned her in Gateshead, where she flagged down a passing motorist.
Fortunately, she was able to write down the first three digits of the van’s number plate, allowing police to identify and trace Hamadi the following day.
At trial, Hamadi admitted to habitually driving at night looking for women to have sex with.
His lawyer argued at the Court of Appeal that this behavior alone does not necessarily make him dangerous.
The appeal was seen as a significant test case, with potential implications for hundreds of prisoners serving indefinite public protection sentences.
His attorney, Edward Fitzgerald, claimed that the current standard for assessing dangerousness used by judges across the UK is too low.
Had Hamadi succeeded, the ruling could have led to major changes in the prison system, where over 5,000 indefinite sentences for public protection (IPP) have been issued since 2005.
Such sentences are comparable to life imprisonment, with inmates unable to be released until they demonstrate they are no longer a threat to society.
However, Lord Justice Hughes clarified that Hamadi had already appealed his IPP sentence once in December 2007, and no grounds existed for a second appeal unless there had been an administrative mistake or he had been unfairly deprived of a proper hearing.
