A High Court in Edinburgh has jailed a former army translator after he was convicted unanimously of raping a 19-year-old woman in a private hire car, with the judge warning that the offence amounted to an “appalling betrayal of trust”. Abdul Nabizada, 36, lived in the Pilton area of the city and had previously worked as an interpreter for the British, Danish and American militaries in Afghanistan. According to the court, the attack happened in 2021, after the woman was taken out on a night in Edinburgh and he failed to take her home.
The sentencing remarks framed the case as more than a serious sexual assault. Judge John Morris KC told Nabizada that a custodial sentence was the only appropriate option, emphasising the breach of confidence represented by his role and background. The judge’s characterisation—describing the conduct as an “appalling betrayal of trust”—came after Nabizada was found guilty at a High Court trial last month.
Nabizada, who had previously denied the charges, also sought to explain his actions through trauma-related evidence. His lawyer told the court that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), asserting that the condition was connected to an improvised explosive device detonating close to him while he served with “western militaries”. This argument was presented as part of the defence position ahead of sentencing, as the case moved from conviction to punishment.
In a further attempt to address the consequences of the guilty verdict, Nabizada’s defence raised the risk of removal from the UK. Prior to sentencing, his lawyer, David Taylor, told the court that Nabizada was “at risk of deportation” because of the conviction, while the defendant—who had been granted indefinite leave to remain—had applied for British citizenship after arriving in the United Kingdom in 2016. The court’s decision therefore concluded not only with a criminal sentence but also with the potential for immigration repercussions.
Prosecutors’ account, as reflected in reporting, described the rape as occurring when the 19-year-old was left with Nabizada in the context of a night out. The case involved a private hire car and centred on what happened after he was supposed to transport her home. The court heard that the assault followed his failure to take her home from the outing, and the jury or judges’ unanimous guilty verdict reflected the seriousness with which the conduct was viewed.
Before the trial and throughout the sentencing process, the defendant’s background was placed before the court. Nabizada had been a tailor in Afghanistan, but he also worked alongside military personnel, translating his native Farsi alongside Dari, Pashto, Urdu and Arabic. Those language skills had shaped his service and, later, his status in the UK. At the time of sentencing, he was described as a father of four and a resident of Pilton.
While mitigation focused on PTSD, the sentencing hearing also included references from the community. Nabizada received multiple written testimonials from Edinburgh’s Afghan community, which described him as a person of previous good character. Those materials were put before the judge as part of the effort to contextualise his life and conduct, although they did not persuade the court to depart from a custodial term.
The judge’s approach made clear that the court did not accept that trauma alone could outweigh the harm caused by the offence. The verdict followed a High Court trial, and the sentencing remarks made reference to how profoundly the conduct undermined any expectation of trust placed in someone with Nabizada’s experience and position. In that sense, the sentence was delivered with an emphasis on the protection of victims and the public seriousness of sexual violence.
Reporting also noted that Nabizada denied the charges and maintained the PTSD explanation related to his exposure to danger while working with “western militaries” in Afghanistan. The court was therefore asked to consider whether the alleged trauma had a bearing on culpability or whether, as the judge effectively concluded, the crime required imprisonment regardless.
In a broader context, the case echoes wider concerns about how interpreters and those connected to international or military operations may struggle with reintegration after trauma—yet the legal process ultimately prioritised the facts of the offending. This is reflected in the court’s insistence that a custodial sentence was unavoidable. The outcome underscores that even where defendants argue mental health pressures and offer character references, serious sexual crimes will still lead to significant imprisonment.
For the victim, the conviction represents accountability after the attack in 2021. For Nabizada, the sentence ends a phase of denial and mitigation and begins the process of serving punishment under the High Court’s direction. The decision also leaves open the possibility, raised by his lawyer, of immigration action, given that he had indefinite leave to remain and had been seeking citizenship. As the case concludes at sentencing, it remains a stark example of how UK courts treat sexual violence and the consequences that follow a unanimous finding of guilt, even for defendants with complex wartime histories and trauma claims.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
