A woman told a jury at Sheffield Crown Court that Ahmed attempted to rape her in the early 1970s, when the defendant was about 16 or 17 years old but she was much younger
Ahmed, who was formerly Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, was today found guilty of sexual offences against a boy and a girl dating back more than 40 years.
A woman told a jury at Sheffield Crown Court that Ahmed, now 64, had attempted to rape her in the early 1970s, when the defendant was about 16 or 17 years old but she was much younger.
The former politician was also found guilty of a serious sexual assault against a boy under 11, also in the early 1970s.
The jury was played a recording of a telephone call between the two complainants, made by the woman after she went to the police in 2016.
Tom Little QC, prosecuting, told the jury that the call was prompted by the man contacting the woman by email saying: 'I have evidence against that paedophile.'
Ahmed denied all the charges but was found guilty on Wednesday of two counts of attempted rape and one of serious sexual assault.
The former Labour peer resigned from the House of Lords in November 2020 after reading the contents of a conduct committee report which found he sexually assaulted a vulnerable woman who sought his help.
Comment: So he was ~17 years old in the 1970's when he committed the sexual assault against children, and then he went on to assault a vulnerable women in 2017, and Wikipedia reports that there have been a number of other sexual impropriety allegations over the last decade.
The report made him the first peer to be recommended for expulsion but he resigned before this could be implemented.
Ahmed was charged along with his two older brothers, Mohammed Farouq, 71, and Mohammed Tariq, 65, but both these men were deemed unfit to stand trial.
Ahmed, pictured outside court in November, was found guilty of sexual offences against a boy and a girl today
The judge, Mr Justice Lavender, will determine on Wednesday afternoon when Ahmed will be sentenced.
The conviction of Ahmed follows a tortuous prosecution, which included the halting of a previous trial by a judge who bemoaned the antiquity of the allegations.
But Judge Jeremy Richardson QC said his decision to stop the original trial in March was due to failings in disclosing evidence which had 'sabotaged' the proceedings rather than his misgiving over the length of time that had elapsed.
Comment: Wiki notes that this was because of 'the prosecution's "disgraceful" failure to disclose material to the defence.'
At a hearing earlier in the prosecution, Judge Richardson had noted that some of the then alleged incidents happened in the late 1960s when Harold Wilson was prime minister, Lyndon Johnson was the US president and the Vietnam War was raging.
In March the judge took the unusual step of ordering a permanent stay on proceedings, bringing the prosecution to a close.
But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) appealed against this decision and it was overturned by the Court of Appeal in June, paving the way for the new trial.
Rosemary Ainslie, head of the CPS special crime division, said: 'We asked the jury to dispassionately consider the evidence against each of these men and decide if they could be sure that our prosecution had proved they committed these crimes.
'By these verdicts the jury has clearly decided that no matter the delay between the offences and the trial, and the defences raised, they could be sure that the accounts of the victims were credible and true.
'One of these defendants held a position of power, influence and responsibility for some time in the House of Lords but this case clearly illustrates that where there is sufficient evidence, even in challenging cases, the CPS will bring a prosecution, put evidence before a jury and see rightful convictions.'
Ms Ainslie added: 'The case also gives an insight into the challenges police and prosecutors face in dealing with huge amounts of information arising from an investigation, and disclosing it properly to the defence to allow a fair trial.
'Disclosure failures should not happen.
'But the case also shows our determination to admit problems, overcome them and pursue the case, and the court's ability to ensure the defendants receive a fair trial and their victims see justice.'
R.C.