Asylum seeker sex attacker jailed Mohammed served two years of a four year jail sentence A Somali asylum seeker who was jailed for several sex attacks but was allowed to stay in Britain has been jailed indeterminately for a further attack. Sadiq Mohammed, 32, was found guilty of abducting and sexually assaulting a girl of seven in Bristol in May 2006. Mohammed, of Barton Hill, was jailed for four years in 2000 for indecently assaulting a 55-year-old woman and trying to attack two others. He assaulted the girl four years after being released from jail. Mohammed approached the girl as she was standing outside a corner shop with her eight-year-old sister. He gave her sister Â£1 to go and by some sweets so he could be alone with the younger girl. He then took her back to his flat where he sexually assaulted the girl and told her not to tell anyone or he would "beat her". The victim only told her parents when she spotted him near a supermarket and said he was a "very bad man". 'Justice served' He denied one charge of child abduction and assault, but the jury at Bristol Crown Court took just under an hour to find him guilty on both counts. Speaking after the hearing the victim's father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said he was relieved. He said: "Justice has been served today. We are very glad about the verdict." Mohammed arrived in Bristol from Somalia in 1990 and applied for asylum. He was jailed for four years in 2000 for attacking three women including a 14-year-old girl, but was released halfway through his sentence. At the time, Judge Lester Boothman recommended that he was deported after describing him as a danger to women and his "presence was detrimental to the country". Commenting on why Mohammed had not been deported, a Home Office spokesman said: "Each case is considered on its individual merits in accordance to our international obligations and taking full account of conditions in the country concerned as they impact on the individual. "We will only enforce return where we are satisfied that the individual concerned will not be at risk." ***************************** so he wasn't at risk eh? Well, that's the main thing then. Shame about the rest of the community and his victims, of course.