Cardiff stalker Zulfkar Ahmed jailed for three years in 2026

Key Points

• A 67‑year‑old man, Zulfkar Ahmed of Grangetown, Cardiff, has been jailed for three years for stalking two young women over several years.
• Ahmed was convicted of two counts of stalking involving serious alarm or distress and one count of breaching a stalking prevention order after a four‑day trial at Cardiff Crown Court.
• He denied the charges but was found guilty by a jury on February 13, 2026, and sentenced on April 15, 2026.
• One of the victims was a cafe worker who said Ahmed bombarded her with messages and gifts and continued to contact her despite being told to stop.
• Ahmed was also linked to pursuing another shop worker he referred to as “the pretty blonde girl,” according to reports.
• The stalking prevention order imposed on Ahmed is understood to have been among the first of its kind in the Cardiff and Vale area for a stranger‑stalking case.
• Ahmed has prior convictions, including assault causing actual bodily harm in 1992 and obstructing an enforcement officer in 2012.
• South Wales Police investigated the case, which led to Ahmed’s prosecution by the Crown.

Cardiff (Cardiff Daily) April 25, 2026 – A 67‑year‑old man has been sentenced to three years in prison for a prolonged stalking campaign against two young women in Cardiff, after a South Wales Police investigation and a Crown Court trial.

Why was Zulfkar Ahmed jailed?

Zulfkar Ahmed, of Corporation Road in Grangetown, was convicted at Cardiff Crown Court of two counts of stalking involving serious alarm or distress, and one count of breaching a stalking prevention order. Ahmed had denied the allegations, but a jury found him guilty following a four‑day trial that concluded on February 13, 2026. Sentencing took place on April 15, 2026, when he was told he would serve three years in prison.

What did the victims say happened?

As reported by Simon Davies of WalesOnline, one victim was a cafe worker who said Ahmed repeatedly contacted her with messages and gifts, continuing even after managers told him to stop all communication. The WalesOnline account notes that Ahmed carried on reaching out to her despite being placed under a stalking protection order, which was meant to shield her from further contact.

Another report, by an unnamed journalist at uknip.co.uk, states that Ahmed also pursued another shop worker he referred to as “the pretty blonde girl,” describing separate but persistent unwanted attention towards a second woman. Both accounts describe the behaviour as obsessive and intrusive, causing serious alarm and distress to the victims over a number of years.

How did the stalking prevention order come into play?

Ahmed was slapped with a stalking protection order in connection with the offences, according to uknip.co.uk. The report notes that this order was understood to be one of the first such stalking protection orders in the Cardiff and Vale area in a case involving a stranger stalking a victim, rather than a partner or ex‑partner.

Despite the legal prohibition, Ahmed allegedly breached the order by following one of the women on social media, actions that pushed authorities to charge him with breaching the stalking prevention order. Section 8 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019, as summarised on legislation.gov.uk, makes it a criminal offence to breach a stalking protection order without reasonable excuse, with penalties that can include imprisonment.

What was said in court and about his record?

In court, the judge reportedly commented that Ahmed had shown no remorse for his actions, according to WalesOnline. The verdict followed a prosecution led by the Crown under guidance that emphasises treating stalking as a serious pattern of fixated, repeated behaviour, as outlined in Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance on stalking and harassment.

Ahmed has a previous criminal record, which includes a 1992 conviction for assault causing actual bodily harm and a 2012 conviction for obstructing an enforcement officer, as noted in the WalesOnline report. These past convictions were outlined during sentencing, contributing to the context in which the judge considered the seriousness of the stalking offences.

How did police and prosecutors respond?

South Wales Police led the investigation that gathered evidence of Ahmed’s repeated contact with the two women, including messages, social‑media activity and attempts to follow or contact them despite warnings. The case was then passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, which authorised the charges of stalking and breach of a stalking prevention order.

The CPS has previously warned that blatant disregard of stalking protection or restraining orders will carry serious consequences, including additional charges and longer sentences when offenders continue to harass victims. Ahmed’s three‑year sentence falls within the CPS’s stated approach of treating stalking breaches as serious and warranting meaningful custodial terms.

Background to the stalking case and legal framework

What triggered the investigation?

The investigation began when South Wales Police were alerted to Ahmed’s persistent contact with the two women, who are described as young workers in Cardiff retail and hospitality settings. Managers at the cafe where one victim worked had already told Ahmed to stop messaging her, yet he allegedly continued the contact, prompting the women to report the behaviour to police.

Once the force began looking into the pattern of messages, social‑media activity and in‑person contact, officers built a case under the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Stalking Protection Act 2019, which define stalking as a course of conduct that causes fear or serious alarm or distress.

How do stalking protection orders work?

Stalking protection orders sit alongside restraining orders and are designed to prevent repeat offending even before a suspect is convicted, although they can also follow conviction. An order can prohibit the offender from contacting the victim, going near certain workplaces or homes or using particular social‑media accounts, on pain of a further criminal charge if breached.

In Ahmed’s case, the order was issued in connection with the campaign against the two women, and his alleged breach – including following one on social media – was treated as a separate criminal offence added to the stalking charges. Analysts of CPS guidance note that such breaches are increasingly prosecuted as distinct offences to underline that ignoring protection orders carries concrete prison risk.

How does this development affect the public and victims of stalking?

What does this mean for other victims in Cardiff and beyond?

For victims of stalking in Cardiff and across Wales, Ahmed’s conviction and sentence may encourage more people to report similar behaviour, knowing that repeated harassment and breaches of protection orders can lead to substantial prison terms. Charities and advocacy groups have long argued that low reporting rates stem partly from fear that stalkers are not taken seriously; cases like this can signal that courts and prosecutors are prepared to impose custodial sentences where there is a clear pattern of alarm or distress.

At the same time, legal‑aid and support organisations may point to the case as an example of how stalking protection orders can be used early in a case to restrict contact, although victims may still need ongoing support – such as counselling, safety planning and, where necessary, changes to housing or work arrangements – to feel secure after the offender is sentenced.

How might this affect how police and courts handle similar cases?

For South Wales Police and other forces, Ahmed’s case may reinforce the use of stalking protection orders in stranger‑stalking scenarios, not just in domestic or ex‑partner contexts. The fact that one of the first such orders in Cardiff and Vale reportedly involved a stranger‑stalking situation could prompt more systematic use of that tool in future cases where individuals repeatedly bother strangers in workplaces, cafes or shops.

For the Crown Prosecution Service, the outcome may serve as a case study in applying updated guidance on stalking and restraining‑order breaches: when offenders break those orders, prosecutors can add a separate breach charge and seek longer sentences, which can both punish the conduct and deter others from ignoring court‑imposed restrictions. That may, in turn, lead to a higher priority being placed on gathering digital evidence – such as social‑media logs and messaging records – in stalking investigations, to prove that contact continued even after explicit warnings or orders.

What practical impact might this have on local communities?

For residents in Grangetown and other parts of Cardiff, the case may heighten public awareness of stalking as a crime that can occur in everyday settings – such as cafes, shops and workplaces – and not only in intimate relationships. Managers and staff in small businesses may be more likely to document unwanted contact, warn repeat customers, and refer problems to police when they meet the threshold of harassment or stalking.

For victims generally, the principal practical effect is that stalkers who ignore protection orders now face a realistic risk of years in prison, which may reduce the temptation to test the boundaries of court‑imposed restrictions. At the same time, frontline services may need to expand outreach and information to ensure that victims understand their rights, how to obtain protection orders, and how to preserve evidence if they consider reporting.