Women Denounce 'Broken' Bail System After Serial Rapist Flees to Pakistan Before Sentencing

Three women who survived years of sexual abuse at the hands of a serial rapist have spoken of their profound sense of betrayal after learning their attacker was able to leave the country while awaiting trial, eventually avoiding his day in court entirely. Amar Ilyas, 41, was ultimately convicted of 20 sexual offences committed against five young girls in Sheffield and was handed a sentence of at least 27 years behind bars — but he was not present to hear it, having fled to Pakistan months earlier.

The case has reignited urgent questions about how the criminal justice system manages the risk posed by defendants who are granted bail, particularly when they face serious sexual allegations stretching back decades. Ilyas was arrested in 2020 and formally charged in 2023 as part of Operation Stovewood, the National Crime Agency's sprawling investigation into historical sexual abuse in South Yorkshire. Despite the gravity of the charges, he was released on court bail — and it is understood that no application was ever made for his passport to be confiscated.

That decision proved catastrophic. Although Ilyas had previously travelled abroad while on bail and returned to the UK as required, in July 2025 he flew to Pakistan and did not come back. A judge subsequently ordered him to return for his trial in September of that year, but he ignored the directive. When the case proceeded at Sheffield Crown Court, he was sentenced in his absence. The court heard how he had preyed on girls as young as 12 in the Meersbrook and Sharrow areas of Sheffield between 2004 and 2007 — a period during which his victims were left carrying the trauma of his abuse for nearly two decades.

One of the women, who was 13 when Ilyas abused her, described being consumed by a bitter sense of injustice. She said she had effectively been imprisoned in her own home because of the damage he inflicted, while her abuser was free to board a plane and leave the country. For her, the sentence brought no closure. She questioned how there could be any real justice when Ilyas had refused to take responsibility and would face no immediate consequences for his crimes.

She also expressed deep frustration at the legal reasoning that allowed him to retain his travel documents. She said she had been informed his passport was kept because of his human rights — a justification she found insulting given the suffering he had caused. She pointed out that he had shown no empathy or humanity towards his victims, yet his own rights and feelings appeared to have been prioritised.

A second survivor, who has learning difficulties and described herself as being in an extremely vulnerable and dark place when the abuse occurred during her teenage years, posed a simple but searing question: why, after committing such offences against young girls, was he permitted to keep his passport? She said she clings to the hope that authorities will one day track him down — telling herself it could happen tomorrow, or perhaps next year — but acknowledged that she has little choice but to keep that hope alive.

A third woman, who was raped by Ilyas as a teenager, said she held out scant expectation that he would ever return to British soil to serve his sentence. She noted that he is believed to be in Pakistan and accepted that investigators are doing what they can, but said she had been told extradition from the country is fraught with difficulty. Her anger was directed not only at Ilyas but at the legal system itself, which she accused of allowing his escape to happen.

All three women have lifelong anonymity as survivors of sexual offences, but they chose to speak publicly to the BBC because they want to see concrete changes designed to stop sex offenders from absconding while legal proceedings are pending. One called for the routine removal of passports in such cases. She warned that the world is one in which these crimes continue to occur, and that other survivors may be deterred from coming forward if they see an abuser slip away without facing the courts.

The National Crime Agency has insisted it is pursuing every avenue to secure Ilyas's capture. Phillip Marshall, who leads Operation Stovewood, said Ilyas had tormented and brutally abused vulnerable young girls and women two decades ago, and had then callously compounded their suffering by failing to return for his trial and sentencing. Marshall said the investigation had been meticulous, ensuring that despite the passage of time, the complexity of the case and the defendant's absence, the crimes were heard, believed and proven in court. He added that the agency is just as determined to ensure Ilyas ultimately serves his prison sentence.

The case also shines a light on Ilyas's family. His younger brothers, Kamar Ilyas, 40, and Kamran Ilyas, 39, are both currently in prison for sexual offences committed against a single victim. Kamar was jailed for 10 years, while Kamran received a three-year sentence. The judge who sentenced all three brothers in June, Peter Hampton, did not oversee the earlier bail condition hearings but described Amar Ilyas as having taken the coward's route by fleeing. In his sentencing remarks, he urged law enforcement to use all available means to execute the outstanding arrest warrant.

It is understood that when the defence team applied for bail, the prosecution had the opportunity to contest it, but no request was made for Ilyas's passport to be forfeited. The government, responding to the case, said that decisions about bail restrictions fall to the independent judiciary — a position that critics argue sidesteps the need for clearer statutory guidance. Lucy Duckworth of the Survivors Trust called the situation absolutely appalling and said it underscored the need for specialist courts and proper training in responding to sexual violence for everyone working in the criminal justice system.

Duckworth argued that the current approach makes no sense: authorities cannot declare someone a serious risk to society and simultaneously grant them bail in a way that allows them the freedom to reoffend or to evade justice altogether. The women's testimony, and the fact that Ilyas remains at large abroad, have renewed calls for a review of how bail conditions are set in high-risk sexual offence cases — and whether the rights of defendants are being balanced against the safety of victims and the public.