History > 2006 > UK > Justice (II)

Thirty years on,

murder conviction

is re-examined

Friday August 11, 2006
Guardian
Duncan Campbell


A man convicted of a murder 30 years ago could learn shortly whether his long battle to have the case reopened has been successful. His supporters claim that he is the victim of one of Britain's longest-running miscarriages of justice.

In September 1975 Beatrice "Biddy" Gold was shot dead in the basement office of the clothing business she ran with her husband in Clerkenwell, east London. The following year a 30-year-old South African-born armed robber called Errol "John" Heibner was convicted of her murder and jailed for life. Now aged 60, he is free after having served more than a quarter of a century in prison, and is still striving to prove his innocence.

This year the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) decided there were insufficient grounds to refer his case back to the court of appeal but now, as a result of "confidential information" passed to it, it confirmed this week it is reconsidering the decision and is inviting fresh representations from Mr Heibner.

On September 8 1975 Mrs Gold had been at the office with her husband Eric and their colleague Sheila Brown. At the end of the day Mr Gold and Ms Brown went shopping.

When they returned to the office Mrs Gold was dead, shot three times with a .32 revolver.

Mr Heibner was known to police as a criminal operating in the area. Born in Cape Town, he had come to London as a boy with his father after his mother died. After service in the merchant navy he was sent to Borstal for a street robbery in London in 1963, then became a professional criminal. At the time of the murder he was facing a 15-year sentence for an armed robbery which he had admitted.

Their suspect was brought in. His then girlfriend was interviewed, and, Mr Heibner says, told that if she did not cooperate she would lose custody of her child. She made a statement, later withdrawn. The suspect signed a confession because he said he wanted to get her and others out of trouble. The case against him rested on his confession, which he retracted.

His appeal against conviction was heard in 1978. It was dismissed, but Lord Justice Shaw suggested the home secretary should undertake an investigation. "The original investigation was fatally flawed," Mr Heibner's solicitor, Rhona Friedman, said yesterday. "We will be asking for more time to present further evidence to the CCRC."

Mr Heibner is not short of prominent figures who believe in his innocence. The Rev Nick Stacey, former director of social servives for Kent, met him in Maidstone prison and became convinced of his innocence. Mr Stacey wrote to two successive home secretaries on his behalf. Lord Ramsbotham, former chief inspector of prisons, has also pressed his case.

The CCRC confirmed it had extended the time for evidence to be submitted until today.

    Thirty years on, murder conviction is re-examined, G, 11.8.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1842245,00.html

2.45pm

Brothers

convicted of Damilola manslaughter

Wednesday August 9, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke and agencies

Two teenagers were today convicted of the manslaughter of 10-year-old Damilola Taylor on a south London housing estate six years ago.

Danny Preddie, 18, and his 19-year-old brother Ricky, of Peckham, south-east London, were found guilty at a retrial at the Old Bailey after an earlier jury could not reach a verdict.

Earlier this year, they were acquitted of Damilola's murder and assault charges.

The 33-day trial - the third into the schoolboy's stabbing - was told that new and "compelling" forensic evidence linked the brothers to the "cruel and callous" killing.

The pair were aged 12 and 13 when Damilola died after being stabbed in the thigh with a broken beer bottle in November 2000. They were arrested a few days after he bled to death in a stairwell on the North Peckham estate.

However, a forensic laboratory and investigators missed vital leads, and they were released without charge.

One was being monitored by the probation service at the time, and the other was on bail and detained at a children's home.

They were re-arrested last year when a second forensic laboratory re-examined clothing seized at the time, and discovered spots of Damilola's blood and fibres from his school uniform.

Victor Temple QC, prosecuting, told the jury: "Crucially, detailed forensic evidence concerning blood and fibres was recovered from items of clothing and footwear attributable to these two defendants.

"The totality of evidence now available points with certainty to the criminal involvement of these two defendants."

A trainer from Danny Preddie's room was found to have a bloodstain from Damilola and in it a fibre indistinguishable from his school trousers.

"It was missed by the laboratory staff who originally examined the trainer," Mr Temple said. He added that whether this had been due to "technical difficulties or human error" was not a matter for the jury.

He said four teenagers had at first been charged with Damilola's murder, but no fingerprints, DNA or fibres linked them to the killing, and they were cleared after an Old Bailey trial.

Subsequently, he said, the evidence was re-examined. He alleged that, on November 27 2000, the brothers approached Damilola following an after-school club.

"One of the Preddie brothers had broken and/or had possession of a recently broken beer bottle," Mr Temple told the court.

"The brother holding the broken bottle thrust it into Damilola Taylor's inner left thigh. Both the brothers were streetwise beyond their age, but neither chose to come to his aid. Instead, both - after a brief pause - walked off."

Damilola was discovered by a man who followed a trail of blood up the stairwell.

    Brothers convicted of Damilola manslaughter, G, 9.8.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1840590,00.html

5.15pm

Life for Toni-Ann murderer

Friday August 4, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies


A self-confessed armed robber was today given a life sentence for the murder of Toni-Ann Byfield and the man who believed he was her father.

Joel Smith, who had 16 previous convictions, shot the seven-year-old in the back in September 2003 after killing Bertram Byfield before her eyes.

There were no witnesses to the double murder, and the 32-year-old was only tracked down after telling people about what he had done.

Smith was jailed for life for both murders with a recommendation he serve a minimum of 40 years for the killing of Toni-Ann and 33 years for the murder of her father.

The Old Bailey heard that Toni-Ann's brutal killing had "shocked the nation" and led to Smith's acquaintances coming forward to report him to police.

She had been staying with Byfield, a convicted crack dealer, in a hostel for former offenders at the time of the murder, but should have been in the care of Birmingham social services.

Byfield - who was discovered not to have been Toni-Ann's biological father - had been imprisoned and shot in connection with his drug dealing by the time she was four.

"She was a bright, fun-loving girl, much loved by those looking after her," Richard Horwell, prosecuting, said.

The Old Bailey jury unanimously found Smith guilty after four days of deliberation. He showed no emotion as the verdict was read out.

Mr Justice Gross told him: "However grimly accustomed one becomes to violent crime there is a particular horror in the shooting in the back at close range of a seven-year-old girl - that is the hallmark of this case.

"Drugs and firearms combine to make an evil mixture."

Toni-Ann's mother, Roselyn Richards, wept and hurried from the courtroom.

In a statement read by her solicitor outside the court, Ms Richards mourned the death of her "bright, lovely" daughter who took "setbacks in her stride". She said she hoped Smith would never leave jail.

"I will never understand Joel Smith," the statement said. "A man who can shoot a seven-year-old girl in the back does not deserve to rejoin society. He has shown no remorse, maintaining his innocence in spite of the overwhelming evidence against him.

"He is in my view a dangerous man, capable of repeating such acts given the opportunity. That window of opportunity was slammed shut today."

During the trial, the court heard how a woman living in the hostel had heard a child scream, followed by the sound of a disturbance and four gunshots just after midnight on the night of the murder.

The court heard Smith - who freely admitted carrying a gun and making his money from robbing drug dealers - confessed the crime to numerous acquaintances after fleeing London for Liverpool in the wake of the killings.

One ex-partner told the court he had talked to her about the murders. "It was me. It wasn't meant to happen like that," she quoted him as saying. He told another acquaintance: "I blasted a dad and his daughter, a little kid."

A prison cellmate who admitted to having killed children while serving in the army in Iraq was told: "You and me are the same. We both killed children."

The Metropolitan police's Operation Trident taskforce, set up to tackle gun crime in London's black communities, said witnesses who would normally refuse to talk had come forward because of the horrific nature of the crime.

"I would like to express my enormous gratitude to the brave witnesses who came forward," Detective Superintendent Neil Basu said. "Without them, this case could not have been successfully prosecuted.

"All those who chose to remain silent ... should hang their heads in shame."

    Life for Toni-Ann murderer, G, 4.8.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,1837557,00.html

12.15pm

Judges overrule Reid

in Afghan hijack case

Friday August 4, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke and agencies

The court of appeal today issued a strongly worded rebuke of successive home secretaries' attempts to deprive nine Afghan hijackers of the right to work, and other freedoms, in the UK.

Three appeal judges threw out an appeal by the current home secretary, John Reid, against an earlier high court ruling that his department's stance towards the men was "an abuse of power".

The court dismissed Mr Reid's claim that immigration law allowed him to impose "temporary admission" status on them and curb their freedom while they remained in the country.

The master of the rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Neuberger, announced their decision in London today, and warmly endorsed the earlier high court decision.

In the written ruling, Lord Justice Brooke said: "We commend the judge [Mr Justice Sullivan] for an impeccable judgment.

"The history of this case through the criminal courts ... has attracted a degree of opprobrium. Judges and adjudicators have to apply the law as they find it, and not as they might wish it to be."

"So far as the powers of the home secretary are concerned, the challenges created by the respondents' presence in this country have been apparent ever since they landed here over six years ago.

"There has been ample time for the home secretary to obtain appropriate Parliamentary authority, if he wished to be clothed with the powers he gave to himself without parliamentary sanction in the August 2005 asylum policy instructions."

Today's ruling is likely to stoke the already volatile relations between the government and the judiciary.

Following the announcement, Mr Reid said he was a "disappointed" by the decision and would introduce new laws as soon as possible to deny leave to remain to the hijackers retrospectively.

"The court has ruled that it is not open to me to deny leave to enter the United Kingdom to the Afghan hijackers, or people like them, whose presence we regard as undesirable. I continue to believe that those whose actions have undermined any legitimate claim to asylum should not be granted leave to remain in the UK.

A Home Office spokeswoman said the new legislation would address the general issue highlighted by the Afghan case, rather than be specifically tailored to the nine individuals, but ministers would seek to make it retrospective to deny them leave.

The men said they were fleeing the Taliban regime and had hijacked the Boeing 727 in February 2000 because they had no other choice. After holding 156 passengers and crew hostage in what became Britain's longest airport siege, they were jailed at the Old Bailey, but freed on appeal in 2003 after it was ruled that the law about whether they had acted under duress had been wrongly applied.

Since then they and their families, who were passengers on the plane, have remained in Britain. Although they were refused asylum, a panel of adjudicators ruled in 2004 that, under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, they could not be sent back to Afghanistan because their lives would be endangered.

However successive home secretaries have refused to grant them discretionary leave to stay in the UK, which would allow them to work. They have been given only temporary admission because the Home Office is reluctant to set a precedent that would encourage future hijackers.

Lawyers for Mr Reid argued at an appeal hearing last week that, although the nine could not be deported, the home secretary was entitled in law to have a policy of granting only temporary admission to failed asylum seekers who had been allowed to remain in the country on human rights grounds.

That hearing followed a high court ruling in May, when Mr Justice Sullivan said the conduct of the Home Office deserved "the strongest mark of the court's disapproval". He made an unprecedented order that it should pay legal costs on an indemnity basis - the highest level possible - to show his "disquiet and concern".

Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that it was unlawful under the 1971 Immigration Act to keep the nine on temporary leave. The judge declared they were entitled to "discretionary leave" to enter and remain in the UK, subject to review every six months.

This allowed the nine to work, possibly claim state benefits and support their families in the UK, even though they were not entitled to full refugee status. In contrast, those subjected to temporary admission normally have to rely on state handouts, cannot work or obtain travel documents, but have to live where they are told, report to the police regularly and remain subject to detention at any time.

Tony Blair took the unusual step to publicly criticise the high court decision, calling it "an abuse of common sense".

The nine - Reshad Ahmadi, Abdul Shohab, Abdul Ghayur, Taimur Shah, Nazzamuddin Mohammidy, Mohammed Kazin, Ali Safi, Mohammed Safi and Mohammed Showaib - say they are educated people and do not wish to "sponge" off the state.

They also apologised to passengers on the flight they hijacked to Stansted for the fear they had caused.

They diverted an Ariana Airlines plane on a flight from Kabul to Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan. The plane was flown to Moscow and then to Britain, where they surrendered after a four-day standoff with police.

Jack Straw, the then home secretary, promised that everyone aboard would be deported. His successors David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and Mr Reid have sought to maintain that pledge.

David Blunkett was home secretary when the nine won their right, under the human rights convention, to remain in the country, and his spokesman described the adjudicator's decision as "mind boggling", while the shadow home secretary, David Davis, said it was "crazy".

After the May high court ruling, Sheona York, of the Hammersmith and Fulham community law centre, said: "They cannot work. They cannot study. They cannot take any steps to improve their lives ... Instead, they are forced to remain on asylum support, through no fault of their own adding fuel to anti-asylum tabloid comments."

    Judges overrule Reid in Afghan hijack case, G, 4.8.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,,1837420,00.html

Families of soldiers killed in Iraq win right to challenge legality of going to war

Thursday July 27, 2006
Guardian
Richard Norton-Taylor

Families of British soldiers killed in Iraq yesterday won a significant legal battle in their fight for an independent public inquiry into the government's decision to invade.

In what their lawyers called a "stunning victory", the families can challenge at a full court hearing the government's claim that the war in Iraq was legal.

Three of the country's most senior judges gave their ruling in the light of what they called the "importance of the issues and the uncertainty of the present position". It was "at least arguable", they added, "that the question whether the invasion was lawful (or reasonably thought to have been lawful) as a matter of international law, is worthy of investigation".

The case was brought by Rose Gentle, Peter Brierley, Beverley Clarke, and Susan Smith - all close relatives of British soldiers killed on active service in Iraq between March 20 2003 and June 28 2004.

Sir Anthony Clarke, master of the rolls - the country's top civil judge - Sir Igor Judge, and Lord Justice Dyson underlined the significance of the case by deciding to hear the arguments themselves rather than delegating it to less senior high court judges. The hearing will question the government's refusal to hold an independent inquiry into the circumstances leading to the invasion of Iraq. The families argue that an inquiry into the lawfulness of the invasion is essential on the basis of article 2 of the European human rights convention, which says that everyone's right to life is protected by law. The families argue that since the invasion of Iraq was unlawful, the military orders to send their relatives to Iraq were in breach of the article.

The judges, who overturned a previous high court ruling blocking the legal action, stressed yesterday that while they believed there was a "compelling reason" why they should hear the families' arguments, "formidable hurdles" remained in their way.

However, Phil Shiner, the families' solicitor, described the ruling as "a stunning victory" which would force the government to put evidence before the judges on how the country was taken to war. "In particular, the government must finally explain how the 13-page equivocal advice from the attorney general of March 7 2003 was changed within 10 days to a one-page completely unequivocal advice that an invasion would be legal.

"My clients believe he impermissibly changed his advice because he was sat on by the prime minister."

Leaks last year showed the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Tony Blair on March 7 2003 that British participation in the US-led invasion without a fresh UN resolution could be declared illegal and Britain faced the prospect of losing a case in an international court.

Rose Gentle, whose son, Gordon, was killed in June 2004, said yesterday he had been in Iraq "to fight for his country but I now know he should never have been sent there". She said she would keep fighting until she got a public inquiry. Peter Brierley, whose son, Shaun, was killed in March 2003, said: "I am convinced my son died for no good reason, as he should not have been sent to Iraq in the first place."

The hearing takes place on November 6.

    Families of soldiers killed in Iraq win right to challenge legality of going to war, G, 27.7.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1831095,00.html

Met faces inquiry over Lawrence cover-up claims

· Detective alleged to have shielded killers
· New light cast on murder of black student in 1993

Wednesday July 26, 2006
Guardian
Vikram Dodd

The Metropolitan police is to face an investigation into allegations that it covered up testimony that the killers of Stephen Lawrence were shielded by a corrupt detective.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission's action has been triggered by a BBC programme tonight about the unsolved murder of the black student in April 1993 at a south-east London bus stop. Five white youths were named by locals as being responsible for the murder, including David Norris, whose father, Clifford, was a notorious gangster suspected of corrupt links with some police officers. In the programme a former officer, Neil Putnam, alleges that John Davidson, a senior detective in the first inquiry into Stephen's death, had a corrupt relationship with Clifford Norris. He alleges that when he told his bosses that corruption had been a factor behind the botched murder inquiry, it was covered up.

Mr Putnam says his information was kept from Sir William Macpherson's public inquiry into police failings. The Lawrence family had alleged officers corrupted by Clifford Norris had helped shield the prime suspects. Mr Putnam is described as a witness of truth by the Met, whose testimony gained corruption convictions against other Met detectives. Mr Putnam himself was convicted of corruption after confessing to offences.

The IPCC deputy chairman, John Wadham, said: "There are two serious allegations in this film and we will be asking the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to record the misconduct complaints. We would then expect the MPS to refer them back to the IPCC for us to decide how they are investigated."

Doreen Lawrence, Stephen's mother, said: "We are the ones, as the family, who have had to sit back and suffer all these years. I hope that the IPCC will prove that they are independent and will investigate the corruption."

Stephen's father, Neville, described the allegations made in the programme as "very disturbing", but added: "It shows that the issue of police corruption can no longer be ignored. It must now be investigated. We are ordinary people and thought there was corruption but could not prove it and we would not make such a claim unless it could be proved."

Richard Stone, adviser to the Macpherson inquiry, reacted with anger: "It is infuriating to be made aware, seven years after the inquiry ... an officer ... was asking to meet Sir William. [Putnam] was considered a reliable witness ... who convicted almost all those he named."

In a statement Scotland Yard denied covering up crucial information. It said that following his arrest Mr Putnam gave anti-corruption officers information about Mr Davidson being corrupt, but did not provide a link with Mr Norris. It said that during a corruption investigation there had been no evidence of ex-detective sergeant Davidson being involved in corrupt activity within the Lawrence inquiry "or doing anything to thwart the investigation". Mr Davidson, who now runs a bar in Spain, denies any wrongdoing and was never prosecuted for any alleged offence.

Timeline:

1993

April 22 Stephen Lawrence murdered in Eltham, south-east London

May 7-10 Neil and Jamie Acourt, Gary Dobson and David Norris arrested

May 13 Neil Acourt charged with murder

June 23 Luke Knight murder charge

July 29 CPS drops murder charges

August 15 Scotland Yard announces internal review of investigation

1994

April 15 CPS again declines to prosecute because of insufficient evidence

August Police second investigation

1995

April 22 Lawrence family private prosecution. Neil Acourt, Knight and Norris arrested. Jamie already in custody on attempted murder charge (later acquitted)

August 23 Case against Jamie Acourt and Norris dropped

August 29 Dobson charged with murder

September 11 Knight and Neil Acourt sent for trial. Dobson followed in December

1996

April 24 Trial at Old Bailey collapses

1997

February 10 Inquest reopens. Jury later returns unlawful killing verdict

December PCA reports "significant weaknesses and omissions during the first murder inquiry"

1998

March 24 Public inquiry opens

1999

February Scotland Yard launches reinvestigation into the murder

2004

May 5 CPS says five-year police reinvestigation has not produced a strong enough case to prosecute anyone for the murder

· The boys who killed Stephen Lawrence, BBC1, tonight, 9pm

    Met faces inquiry over Lawrence cover-up claims, G, 26.7.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1830208,00.html

Fake sheikh accused after terror plot acquittals

· Three men cleared in 'red mercury' bomb case
· Tabloid investigator attacked over sting

Wednesday July 26, 2006
Guardian
Jeevan Vasagar

The investigative methods of the News of the World and its collaborations with Scotland Yard were denounced yesterday after a jury cleared three men of plotting to buy radioactive material for a terrorist "dirty bomb".

The three were arrested after a joint sting operation involving Mazher Mahmood, known as the "fake sheikh" for his most famous disguise, and the Metropolitan police's anti-terrorist branch. City banker Dominic Martins, 45, businessman Abdurahman Kanyare, 53, and Roque Fernandes, 44, a security guard at Coutts, spent two years on remand after the paper alleged they were trying to buy a kilogram of "red mercury".

The three were cleared at the Old Bailey yesterday of conspiring to fund terrorism and conspiring to possess an article for terrorist purposes.

The prosecution claimed the three men became involved in the alleged plot to make money. Mr Mahmood was introduced to the men as a prospective seller of red mercury. He was later joined by undercover officers, who met Mr Kanyare, a businessman who was said to have a contact in the Gulf who wanted to buy the substance. Mr Martins, who worked at Deutsche Bank, and Mr Fernandes were implicated as middlemen.

Before the trial began, defence lawyers urged the judge to throw the case out, arguing that the men had been trapped by an agent provocateur, an associate of the men referred to in court as Mr B who contacted Mr Mahmood after he was disappointed with the police's initial reaction to his claims. Mr Mahmood taped meetings with Mr B and then with the three alleged plotters in August and September 2004. The court heard that the journalist became an authorised covert source for the anti-terrorist squad during his dealings with the gang.

Stephen Solley, QC, defending Mr Martins, accused Mr Mahmood of misleading the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the courts. He said there was a "huge danger of accepting Mr Mahmood's word in respect of any matter".

In a pre-trial hearing for the red mercury case, Mr Solley said Mr B had deliberately misled the three men into agreeing a deal which they would not have concluded if they had known the truth.

"B created, through his activities with Mr Mahmood - who himself knew it was entirely a sham - a pincer movement so both their respective motives could be satisfied." These motives were "money on the one hand and selling newspapers on the other. We submit that justice went out of the window".

The three-month trial is estimated to have cost over £1m.

In a joint statement, defence solicitors said: "This is a great tribute to the jury system and English justice and a dark day for the News of the World."

The News of the World yesterday defended its reporter, whose previous exposes have embarrassed Sven-Goran Eriksson, Princess Michael of Kent and the Countess of Wessex. The paper said Mr Mahmood's stories had resulted in over 200 convictions.

In a statement, the paper said: "The News of the World involvement in this investigation and subsequent trial was conducted under the direction of senior anti-terrorist police officers. We are entirely satisfied that the methods used in the investigation were not only wholly proper, but were both authorised and, from an early stage, continued in close liaison with the police."

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said police had launched an investigation after being tipped off by the newspaper. "The fact that the defendants have been acquitted does not mean the case was not properly brought to court. The Crown Prosecution Service considered the evidence and decided there was a case to answer, and that decision was later confirmed by the trial judge."

Under anti-terrorism laws, the attorney general also had to sign off the prosecution. Scotland Yard said it would not rule out working with the paper again. Sue Hemming, the CPS's head of counter terrorism, said: "It was right to bring this case. We regarded the evidence as credible and the trial ran its full course."

Red mercury was described by the News of the World as "a deadly substance developed by cold war Russian scientists for making briefcase nuclear bombs". In fact it was invented by Soviet intelligence for cold war sting operations.

All three men were held in custody until yesterday. Mr Kanyare's solicitor, Paul Harris, said his client was still being held "at the behest of the immigration services, despite the order of the judge that he should be released".

Mr Martins' solicitor said: "Mr Martins now wishes to go back to his family from which he has been parted for two years."

Mahmood's set-ups: Hits and misses

The hits

March 1998 Newcastle United FC chairman Freddie Shepherd and deputy chairman Doug Hall resign after Mahmood's "Toongate tapes", recorded in a Spanish brothel, reveal them mocking fans and describing Geordie women as "dogs".

May 1999 London's Burning actor John Alford jailed for nine months for supplying cocaine and cannabis after being set up by Mahmood, posing as an Arabian prince. Alford claims entrapment but loses appeals to high court and European court of human rights.

April 2001 Sophie, Countess of Wessex resigns as chair of PR firm after a Mahmood sting suggests she was exploiting royal connections. Sophie is recorded calling the prime minister "President Blair", describing Cherie Blair as "horrid, horrid, horrid", and William Hague as "deformed".

September 2001 Mahmood, wearing traditional Muslim clothes, infiltrates a Taliban recruiting meeting in Afghanistan.

September 2005 Taking on the guise of a wealthy Arab prince, Mahmood fools Princess Michael of Kent into revealing her views on the royal family. He claims she described Diana, Princess of Wales, as "nasty", "bitter" and "strange".

January 2006 Posing as an Arab businessman, Mahmood lures England head coach Sven-Göran Eriksson to Dubai to discuss a bogus managerial deal. Eriksson reveals when he will leave England. He also suggests Michael Owen only joined Newcastle United for the huge salary, and describes Rio Ferdinand as "lazy sometimes".

The misses

September 1999

Mahmood is criticised in court for "ensnaring" the Earl of Hardwicke, who was convicted of supplying cocaine during a sting in 1998. Mahmood spends three days in the witness box defending his methods.

October 1999 Rhodri Giggs, brother of footballer Ryan, is arrested after being accused of supplying cocaine to Mahmood. He loses his job, but is later found not guilty after the prosecution says it cannot rely on taped conversations between him and Mahmood.

November 2002 Mahmood exposes a "plot" to kidnap David and Victoria Beckham's children. Five men are charged but the case is thrown out after it is ruled that the paper's informant was an unreliable witness.

January 2003 Mahmood "resigns" after a report is cut to a few paragraphs. He reportedly walks out after dumping an AK-47 on an assistant editor's desk.

March 2006 George Galloway says Mahmood tried unsuccessfully to goad him into making anti-semitic remarks and accepting improper political financing. The MP gets his revenge by publishing photos of Mahmood on the internet after a court battle with the News of the World.

Linda MacDonald

    Fake sheikh accused after terror plot acquittals, G, 26.7.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1830215,00.html

Bullying mother-in-law must pay £35,000

· Bride turns to harassment law in landmark legal case
· Arranged marriage ended in humiliation and abuse

Tuesday July 25, 2006
Guardian
Sam Jones

A woman who subjected her daughter-in-law to a four-month campaign of bullying and humiliation was yesterday ordered to pay her £35,000 in compensation, after a landmark court case.

Gina Satvir Singh, 26, used the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act - normally employed to deter noisy neighbours or stalkers - to take her mother-in-law, Dalbir Kaur Bhakar, to court. It is believed to be the first time the act has been used in such a way.

Nottingham county court heard how Ms Singh's life fell apart four years ago after her arranged marriage to Hardeep Bhakar, now 29. After having left school at 16 and started working in her family's clothing and fashion businesses, she had risen to a managerial position. By the time of her marriage, Ms Singh had what was described to the court as "considerable experience of the wider world".

But the hearing was told that everything changed when she moved from Bunny in Nottinghamshire to Ilford in Essex, to live with her new husband and his mother at their family home. A devout Sikh who entered into the marriage willingly, Ms Singh said she had accepted she would live with her husband's family - but her mother-in-law's campaign of torment led to serious health problems and the breakdown of the marriage in March 2003.

She was forced to do menial housework for hours and was kept a virtual prisoner in the house, beginning her domestic duties at 6.30am. Ms Singh told the court her mother-in-law called her a "poodle" and contrived a work routine - including cleaning toilets without a brush - designed to "exhaust and humiliate" her.

Ms Singh claimed that she was not allowed to visit the local Sikh temple, and was allowed only four short visits home to her parents in the weeks after her wedding. She said her telephone use was limited and her calls monitored.

The court also heard that Mrs Bhakar forced her daughter-in-law to have her hair cut to shoulder length, despite knowing her religious beliefs forbade it.

Ms Singh said she was not allowed to register with a local GP, and that a hand infection, the result of the excessive cleaning she was forced to do, went untreated.

Mrs Bhakar, 52, denied the allegations, but her claims of innocence were rejected. Within four months the marriage had fallen apart and Ms Singh had moved out and returned to Nottinghamshire. The couple have since divorced.

Recorder Timothy Scott awarded Ms Singh £35,000 after accepting her claim that she had endured "misery and humiliation". He said: "She was utterly miserable and wretched during those months and was suffering from what was for her an incomprehensible personal attack."

After the case, Ms Singh's solicitor, John Rosley, said: "This case has exposed a problem that is common but not often talked about. This very difficult case was brought by a brave young woman who is now rebuilding her life.

"There must be many who could bring such a case but do not. My client has had the strength to do so only due to the support of her family and her faith. She did so for all young women in a similar situation.

"We now hope that the publicity generated by this successful action will persuade other women who have suffered similarly to come forward."

Mrs Bhakar's barrister, Colin Anderson, said that she and her family were "disappointed" and were planning to appeal against the level of damages.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 covers a variety of behaviours, including religious or racially motivated harassment. It can also be used to prosecute people who play loud music or carry out noisy house repairs, if their behaviour is considered to amount to harassment.

A person can be convicted of criminal harassment if it is proved that they knowingly pursued a course of conduct which resulted in the harassment of another individual.

    Bullying mother-in-law must pay £35,000, G, 25.7.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1828064,00.html

Midday

Supermarket rapist sentenced to nine years

Friday July 21, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A 15-year-old who raped an 11-year-old girl in the toilets of a Sainsbury's supermarket was sentenced to nine years in juvenile detention today.
The teenager carried out the "humiliating and degrading" attack on March 2 in the Sainsbury's store in Leamington Spa, Coventry crown court was told.

Judge Marten Coates also sentenced the youth - who has not been named because of rules preventing the identification of children in legal cases - to four concurrent 18-month sentences for a series of other attacks in the Warwickshire town.

"You took an opportunity when [the victim] became separated from her mother," he said. "You seized her from behind and, with her eyes and her mouth covered by your hands, you dragged her to a toilet cubicle.

"The incident appears to have been concluded abruptly because of the fortunate arrival of somebody else into the toilet block."

Detective Chief Inspector Adrian Pearson said that he had been astoundingly calm and calculating for a teenager, and recalled him "grinning" as he stood in the dock when he was first charged. "This, bearing in mind he could hardly see over the top of the box," he said.

"He was very cool when we went to see him. He said he had no involvement and he was very calculating about it for someone who was 15. Telling the truth did not come easy to him and that was part of his lifestyle.

"It was difficult to believe that someone so small and insignificant had done something so wicked. The seriousness of the attack and degree and ferocity of sexual readiness was absolutely incredible.

"He wasn't put off by the proximity of other people and was prepared enough to take condoms with him."

He said that the defendant had never had a girlfriend and may have been abused as a toddler, but added that he had come from a "stable, loving, supportive family background where you would not expect this sort of behaviour to come from".

The 15-year-old pleaded guilty to the attacks after confessing to the police following eight interviews in which he denied involvement. Mr Pearson said that he had attempted at first to hide the distinctive red, black and grey hooded coat he had been wearing at the time of the attack.

The victim's mother said that the attack had transformed her daughter. "She was bubbly, had a nice personality, outgoing, friendly, with lots of confidence. She would go anywhere, do anything on her own," she said.

"Now she's different, she's lost her confidence. She's not as bubbly and outgoing as she used to be. She's lost her trust of people.

"We take her most places now. She still has to be taken to the toilet. She doesn't like coming out of small rooms, she still has nightmares, but not as many as she used to. It's going to be a long, slow process."

The 11-year-old had identified her attacker while driving with her mother through Leamington Spa in the days after the rape, tipping off police to his identity. Her mother said that he should be named publicly: "If he is able to do such an adult thing then I think why not name him?" she said.

    Supermarket rapist sentenced to nine years, G, 21.7.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1826028,00.html

Reid launches 'get tough' justice package

More jails and longer sentences at heart of home secretary's 24-point plan

Friday July 21, 2006
Guardian
Alan Travis, home affairs editor

The home secretary, John Reid, yesterday launched a 24-point "get tough" criminal justice package which marked a clear return for Labour to the "prison works" policy of Michael Howard's Home Office.

In the face of a record prison population in England and Wales of 78,000 and climbing, Mr Reid became the latest in a long line of home secretaries to try to build his way out of a prisons crisis by announcing the provision of a further 8,000 prison places and longer sentences for the most serious criminals.

The package is the product of Tony Blair's speech this month, promising to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the "victim and the law abiding majority" in the wake of a series of high-profile scandals involving the release of convicted killers and sentencing rows.

The commitment to building more jails and to longer prison sentences also marks a major departure from David Blunkett's "tough and tender" 2003 Criminal Justice Act, which combined a more punitive approach to the most serious offenders with a rehabilitative regime for the less serious offenders.

Mr Reid confirmed yesterday he had cancelled plans to introduce a "custody plus" sentence this autumn - the last element of the 2003 act to be implemented - which would have diverted 60,000 a year less serious offenders away from prison after a short spell inside.

The criminal justice package also proposes abandoning parts of the sentencing regime in Mr Blunkett's act which were implemented in January last year. They include judges automatically "halving" the sentence tariffs for dangerous offenders on new indeterminate or unlimited sentences. An automatic one-third sentence discount for those who enter an early guilty plea is also to be scrapped.

But civil rights campaigners were relieved that the government has drawn back from threats to amend the Human Rights Act, and instead promised to keep it on the statute book.

Instead, those who work in the criminal justice system are to given better training to ensure they do not "misinterpret" the rights of offenders under the legislation. Practical myth-busting advice is also to be issued to tackle the misunderstandings that surround the controversial legislation. The human rights organisation, Liberty, said it would hold Dr Reid to his word. But the home secretary said the government would continue to fight in the human rights court in Strasbourg to overturn the "outrageously imbalanced" Chahal case ruling which prevented them deporting foreign terror suspects.

Among the more punitive approach to serious and violent offenders and those who breach the terms of their bail or release conditions, Mr Reid promised new help for victims. These include powers to enable them to sue their attackers for compensation, including cost of medical bills, and the introduction of parental compensation orders this summer in trial areas to ensure they take responsibility for their children's acts of criminal damage.

Harry Fletcher of the probation officers' union, Napo, said: "The criminal justice system was last fundamentally revised in 2003. Many of those changes were implemented in April 2005. The system does not need yet more legislative changes, it needs a period of stability."

    Reid launches 'get tough' justice package, G, 21.7.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1825758,00.html

5pm update

Anger at decision not to review paedophile's sentence

Monday July 10, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Oliver and agencies

The mother of the three-year-old victim of paedophile Craig Sweeney said today she was "gut-wrenchingly sick" over a decision not to refer his sentence to the court of appeal.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, announced this afternoon that he would not challenge the minimum sentence handed down to Sweeney last month by John Griffith Williams at Cardiff crown court.

Sweeney, 24, was sentenced to life and the judge said that while he was unlikely to be released early, he could apply for parole after just five years and 108 days.

With hours of the sentencing, the home secretary, John Reid, called it unduly lenient" and called for it to be reconsidered.

Today, Lord Goldsmith rejected that call in an embarrassing rebuke for Mr Reid.

After the attorney general's announcement, a statement on behalf of the victim's mother was released by her solicitor.

She said: "We are gut-wrenchingly sick at today's announcement. This case is too horrific to know the details, but we can tell you that Sweeney was literally found with our child's blood on his hands."

She referred to the fact that Sweeney had been jailed for three years in 2003 for indecently assaulting a six-year-old girl and had attacked her child two weeks after his licence period for the earlier attack ran out.

The mother of the three-year-old said: "This really started because a convicted paedophile was released too soon from prison.

"If the likes of him, who pose such a high risk to children, are let out too soon again, this will happen again and again.

"When it does, the politicians and everyone else involved here will also have blood on their hands."

Lord Goldsmith defended his decision and Judge Williams, who, he said, was acting within the sentencing guidelines.

He said, however, there would be a wide-ranging review of sentencing issues and questioned the discounts given to defendants who plead guilty when they have been "caught red handed" and would be convicted anyway.

Sweeney benefited from guidelines to judges that give reductions in sentences for defendants who pleaded guilty, although the judge said it was "unlikely" Sweeney would be paroled early.

Lord Goldsmith said: "It is plain that there is a need to re-examine the automatic 50% reduction in fixing the minimum term.

"The home secretary, the lord chancellor and I are in complete agreement that we need a criminal justice system which protects the public, particularly vulnerable children, and in which the public has confidence."

Commenting this afternoon on Lord Goldsmith's decision, the Conservative home affairs spokesman, David Davis, said: "The government should realise that this sentence was a consequence of their own policy.

"John Reid should be addressing that, not seeking to deflect attention by having a row with judges.

"The judge was merely following the government's own guidelines. What we need is urgent reform of those guidelines."

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, said: "This is what happens when ministers seek to second guess both the decisions of judges and of the attorney general himself.

"John Reid, by lashing out in a vain attempt to gain a media headline, has now discredited himself, the judiciary, and the attorney general. No wonder the public is despairing of New Labour's dismal record in the vital area of law and order."

Last month the court heard that Sweeney abducted the three-year-old from her home in Cardiff, and sexually assaulted her at a "halfway house" for released prisoners in Newport, south Wales.

He later took her on a drive over the Severn Bridge and along the M4 into England and she was found by police hours later in Wiltshire after a car chase that began because Sweeney had no lights and ran a red light.

Today was the final day that Lord Goldsmith could refer the sentence to the appeal court with a view to seeking a tougher sentence.

Lord Goldsmith has referred almost 700 cases for review of undue leniency since he took over the top law officer's job in 2001.

In 521 cases, the court agreed, and 414 offenders had their sentences increased.

    Anger at decision not to review paedophile's sentence, G, 10.7.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1817079,00.html

Gunman admitted killing Toni-Ann, court told

· Trial opens of drug dealer accused of double murder
· Confessions 'made to girlfriends and cellmates'

Thursday July 6, 2006
Guardian
David Pallister


A self-confessed gunman and robber of drug dealers must have thought he had committed the perfect crime - "a crime that shocked the nation" - when he shot dead Bertram Byfield and his seven-year-old daughter Toni-Ann, an Old Bailey jury was told yesterday.

Opening the murder trial of Joel Smith, 32, Richard Horwell, for the prosecution, said there had been no forensic evidence left at the west London bedsit where the pair were killed with a 9mm gun in September 2003. There were no witnesses and no CCTV.

Byfield, 41, was himself a dealer in cannabis and crack cocaine. But these murders were in no sense ordinary, Mr Horwell said, because a "bright, fun-loving little girl", known affectionately as "TT", had been shot dead with a bullet in the back.

"The notoriety was such that eventually the normal barriers that exist between individuals and the police collapsed and witnesses came forward to assist in the investigation that otherwise would not have done so," he said.

Over the next two years Smith, whose street nickname was Kane or Cocaine, would make several alleged confessions. Some were to his girlfriend or ex-partners; others to friends and acquaintances, including cellmates while he was serving a prison sentence in Liverpool for another crime.

Some were covertly taped by the police. In one he is alleged to have claimed that he was hired to shoot Byfield for £25,000.

Mr Horwell said: "This terrible crime might have remained unsolved. Police needed a breakthrough. It was provided by the defendant himself.

"No human being, no matter how cold or calculating, can shoot a seven-year-old through the back and not feel some remorse after the event.

"It is the combination of guilt, a loose tongue and a misplaced trust in others that has placed this defendant in the dock."

He suggested that Toni-Ann had been killed to eliminate her as a witness. Smith, of no fixed address, denies murder.

Mr Horwell outlined the complicated history of Byfield's and Toni-Ann's peripatetic life.

Also known as Anthony Pinnock, Byfield was born in Jamaica where he married and had several children before getting divorced. He had lived in England for many years and often had several girlfriends at the same time. In 1997 he was jailed for nine years for possession of crack cocaine with intent to supply. In 2002 he was shot at the home of a girlfriend in Wembley.

Toni-Ann was also born in Jamaica, where she lived for a while with Byfield's ex-wife. She was sent to England in 2000 and spent time with several different carers. Occasionally she spent weekends with her father.

But Mr Howell said that while Byfield believed he was her father, DNA tests after their deaths showed they were not actually related.

On the fatal weekend Toni-Ann could talk of nothing but her new school and during the Saturday afternoon and evening she and Byfield spent hours out shopping in west London for her school uniform. Just before 12.30am the gunman arrived at the house, a hostel for single ex-offenders.

A woman staying on the first floor heard Toni-Ann scream, and a disturbance - possibly a bike being thrown around. "Then four shots - then silence," Mr Horwell told the court.

When the police arrived they found Byfield's body entangled with a bicycle. He had been shot in the groin and then in the side of his body. Toni-Ann was lying near the door.

"Neither had any prospect of survival and must have died very soon afterwards," he said.

After the murders, Mr Horwell said, Smith, who was born in London, headed north, first to an ex-partner in Nottingham. She thought he was in a state of panic and refused to let him stay. A few months later he referred to the murders while with another ex-partner.

"It was me. It wasn't meant to happen like that," he is alleged to have said.

Smith moved to Liverpool, where he allegedly told a friend: "I have blasted a Yardie and his girl."

To another friend he claimed to know the reason why Byfield was killed. "I know 'cos it was fucking me," he is alleged to have said.

After being jailed in Liverpool he became friendly with an ex-army cellmate who admitted he had killed children in Iraq but not deliberately. Mr Horwell said Smith replied: "You and me are the same. We both killed children."

In September last year, another cellmate watched Smith's reaction as he viewed a BBC Crimewatch appeal which gave a description similar to himself and suggested the murderer had moved to the north-west.

A detective had said on the programme that the child's killer would "stand out like a sore thumb" with his London accent among the criminal fraternity on Merseyside.

Smith had jumped off his bed and turned the television off. He allegedly said: "If they get me for this, I won't see the other side of the wall."

In a guarded phone call to his girlfriend the next day they discussed the programme and he remarked that "the clock was ticking."

The trial continues.

    Gunman admitted killing Toni-Ann, court told, G, 6.7.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,1813605,00.html

3.30pm

Three jailed for 'execution' of couple

Friday June 30, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Three men were today beginning life sentences for the "utterly evil" murder of a couple who were shot at their seaside bungalow.
John Russell, Michael McNee and a 39-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were yesterday convicted of conspiracy to murder Joan and

John Stirland at their home in Trusthorpe, Lincolnshire.

The unnamed defendant - described as the gang leader who organised the killings - was told he would serve at least 35 years.

His co-defendant Russell, 29, of Northcote Way, Nottingham, was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years. McNee, a 21-year-old of no fixed address, was given a minimum sentence of 25 years.

Sentencing the men at Birmingham crown court, Mr Justice Treacy said there were no mitigating features to the case. "These were shocking murders by any standards," he said. "They were nothing less than executions of totally innocent people.

"The Stirlands were killed in their own home for no reason other than that one of the victims was the mother of somebody you wanted to take revenge on.

"You could not get to that person directly, so you carefully planned these murders to get at him by proxy. You also wanted to make a gesture to confirm your own perceived criminal status in areas of Nottingham."

During the three-month trial, the court heard that the catalyst for the murders was a shooting carried out by Michael O'Brien, Mrs Stirland's son by a previous marriage.

O'Brien had argued with an 18-year-old man at a pub in the Bulwell area of Nottingham in August 2003.

As the 18-year-old, who cannot be named, drove away from the pub, O'Brien aimed a gun at him and opened fire. He missed the teenager but killed his best friend, Marvyn Bradshaw.

The teenager who had been with Mr Bradshaw struggled to come to terms with the shooting. He became depressed, turned to drugs and died of pneumonia soon after O'Brien was convicted.

The gang leader, who was described by his defence counsel as a "notorious" criminal, enlisted Russell and McNee to help organise the killings out of a "perverted desire for revenge", the court heard.

Mr Justice Treacy described the man - who was sent to the cells before sentencing after he began hurling abuse - as "a crook, a villain and a large-scale drug dealer". He said what he had done was "utterly evil".

Addressing Russell and McNee in turn, the judge said each had played a crucial role in the murders. "You may not have pulled the triggers but your actions enabled that to be done in a direct way," he told Russell.

The judge told McNee that although his role was the same as Russell's, his sentence was lower because of his age.

"You were just 19 at the time of the murder," he said. "You were a vital member of the conspiracy, fully in the know and giving vital help right to the point of the shooting."

Following sentencing, Mr Justice Treacy asked retired Detective Superintendent Graham White to step into the witness box. Mr White, who led the investigation before leaving Lincolnshire police, was praised for the work undertaken by his team.

"This was a murder which shocked the nation," the judge said. "You were faced with a vacuum of evidence at the start of the inquiry. By pursuing a painstaking and detailed inquiry, you have brought some of those responsible to justice."

He said it was "plain from the evidence in this case there were others involved who have yet to be brought to justice" and told the court he hoped the case file would remain open.

Mr Stirland, 55, and his 51-year-old wife were killed on August 8 2004, days after the death of the teenager who had witnessed the shooting carried out by O'Brien and eight months after they had fled Nottingham following an attack on their home in the Midlands city.

A further five defendants, all from Nottingham, were yesterday cleared of conspiracy to murder following the three-month trial.

    Three jailed for 'execution' of couple, G, 30.6.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1810002,00.html

Experts tell Blair to halt wave of crime laws

Friday June 23, 2006
Guardian
Alan Travis

Britain's leading crime experts have accused Tony Blair of becoming an uncritical "cheerleader for more punishment" and told him that yet another round of criminal justice legislation would be like "putting a plaster on a broken leg".

They warned the prime minister to "think hard" before today launching "another grand statement of governmental purpose and a further round of headline-grabbing legislation" to tackle crime.

Ian Loader, Oxford University's professor of criminology, one of a group of leading crime experts called in by Downing Street to advise Mr Blair on today's speech, told him: "As the Home Office has found to its cost in recent weeks, the dizzying pace of new initiatives has made it more difficult to keep one's eye on the ball of sound administration and deliver programmes that stand some chance of achieving positive results on the ground."

Mr Blair's speech is expected to lead to a new round of criminal justice legislation. Plans next month are expected to include a further extension of on-the-spot justice for low-level crime and disorder, and the introduction of "public protection advocates" to limit the impact of human rights legislation on the criminal justice system.

In his written advice among the submissions from crime experts posted yesterday on the N0 10 website, Prof Loader said that after interviewing victims of crime for a decade he was convinced that those who felt angry and let down by the criminal justice system were not the majority Mr Blair imagines; they were a noisy minority at a time when crime had been going down for a decade.

His warning was backed by Julian Roberts, of Oxford University, who said Mr Blair's "redress the balance" analysis would "lead to a tabloid justice outcome". Sir Anthony Bottoms, Wolfson professor of criminology, said anxieties about disorder in the streets could not necessarily be tackled by reforms to the justice system because of low detection rates for many crimes and the reluctance of people in the worst areas to report crime.

    Experts tell Blair to halt wave of crime laws, G, 23.6.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1804034,00.html

Ex-lover who strangled heiress is cleared of murder

· Judge refers to 'low degree' of provocation
· Family relieved after killer is jailed for manslaughter

Wednesday June 21, 2006
Guardian
David Pallister

A man who admitted strangling the daughter of one of Britain's richest men after she told him she had slept with another man was yesterday convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight and a half years in prison.

Suzy Healey, 39, daughter of the Hygena kitchen tycoon Malcolm Healey, was killed by her former lover, Richard Holtby, 38, in August last year.

The jury at Hull crown court had been told that Holtby "snapped" after he realised his ex-fiancee - who had manic depression and a drink problem - had slept with another man. The next day Ms Healey's naked body was found at her £1.9m home, Ellerker Hall, in East Yorkshire. She had been strangled.

Holtby, who was found not guilty of murder, was told by Mr Justice Wilkie that he had been subjected to a "low degree" of provocation.

The judge said: "It is clear from all who spoke of her, Suzy Healey was a demanding person to befriend or become involved with. She had many admirable qualities, including the loyalty of her many friends, family and employees, but they were not blinded to her problems, which were clear for all to see. Whatever her difficulties, which were essentially not of her own making, she did not remotely deserve to die at your hands."

The judge said the fact that she was having sexual relations with another man had been disclosed a couple of days before he killed her and was therefore not "a bolt from the blue". He said the relationship was only nine months old. He added: "The remorse you have professed in court is more directed at your own plight rather than for the woman whose life you cut short for no good reason."

After the verdict the Healey family spoke in a statement of their relief that the trial was over. The statement said: "Suzy was very special and, to those who knew her well, was a force for good, always cheerful and smiling. Although a private person, she enjoyed company and was in no way the reclusive figure painted by some sections of the media. Suzy's compassion and love of wildlife led her to establish a refuge for neglected and abused animals which became the centre of her life."

Holtby met Ms Healey, a divorced mother of two teenage girls, nine months before her death. He moved into Ellerker Hall in March 2005, and although he moved out three months later the couple continued seeing each other.

The jury had been told that their relationship was marred by regular arguments. One of the sources of argument was the defendant not getting a job. Ms Healey thought he was lazy and did not want him living off her. She also did not like his controlling behaviour.

The relationship deteriorated and when Ms Healey decided that it was over she went on holiday without Holtby. When she returned she did not invite him to a lunch to celebrate her birthday. She returned home with two friends and opened a bottle of wine. Mr Holtby arrived, an unwelcome guest, at about 5.30pm and soon after that the friends left them alone.

Holtby had told the court she asked him to make love to her, saying: " 'Make it better than Ehab did.' I just snapped. I just completely snapped." After strangling her, Holtby drove Ms Healey's pick-up to a garage at about 10pm, where he bought a bottle of whisky and a two-litre bottle of cider. He called a friend, Michael Naylor, saying he thought he had done something terrible because Ms Healey was threatening to go out with someone else.

After staying at Mr Naylor's house, the next day Holtby disposed of his jeans in a field. Still drunk, he drove towards Whitby when he was in a collision with other cars. He was arrested when found slumped over the steering wheel.

    Ex-lover who strangled heiress is cleared of murder, NYT, 21.6.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1802278,00.html

9.15am

DNA review reopens Nickell case

Wednesday June 21, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A sex attacker imprisoned in the top-security Broadmoor hospital is being questioned by police today over the 1992 London killing of the young mother Rachel Nickell on the basis of new DNA developments, reports said today.

The 40-year-old man was imprisoned over a separate killing of a mother and child in the early 1990s, and has now been linked to the Nickell killing using DNA evidence.

Officers attending the hospital today will ask him for a fresh DNA sample to compare with traces of DNA found on Rachel's underwear that can now be analysed thanks to scientific breakthroughs since the original investigation.

The DNA is believed to be a partial sample, meaning that on its own it would not be enough to convict the man, who was not named.

The link was thrown up after police ordered a 10-year anniversary review of the case files in 2002, in which they compared original witness statements, suspect files, links to other crimes and similarities between the injuries inflicted on the victims.

Ms Nickell had been walking during the morning with her two-year-old son, Alex, on Wimbledon Common when she was attacked, sexually assaulted and stabbed 49 times. Alex was later found beside her body saying: "Get up, mummy."

Last year, Ms Nickell's former partner Andre Hanscombe said that Alex had been permanently traumatised by the incident, and had become a troublemaker who claimed not to have a family.

A former suspect Colin Stagg said that he was vindicated by the news. Mr Stagg spent a year in jail for the crime, after a female undercover police officer claiming to want to start a sexual relationship with him encouraged him to describe imagined fantasies about the killing. A 1994 appeal overturned his conviction.

He told the Daily Mail that he would be seeking £1m in damages for his imprisonment. "People have been pointing the finger at me for 12 years," he said.

"I haven't been able to get a proper job, I live in fear the whole time and people treat me as if I am a sex attacker.

"I said I was innocent from day one but nobody listened. I'm entitled to every penny I can get."

    DNA review reopens Nickell case, G, 21.6.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1802578,00.html

Homophobic killers jailed as gay-hate crimes soar
 

Published: 17 June 2006
The Independent
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent, and and Genevieve Roberts
 

Two men who punched and kicked a gay barman to death as if they were " trying to kill an animal" were jailed for a minimum of 28 years yesterday.

The sentencing came as it emerged that the number gay-hate crime cases being dealt with by the courts almost doubled in the past year, to 600 investigations. But campaigners warn that the prosecution rate represents a fraction of the true scale of the problem.

Jody Dobrowski, a 24-year-old barman, sustained 33 separate injuries during the attack on Clapham Common in October last year. His killers, Thomas Pickford, 25, and Scott Walker, 33, showed no emotion as they were jailed for life after admitting to the murder at the Old Bailey. The court heard how Mr Dobrowski's body was beaten so severely that his family did not recognise him, and had to identify him by his fingerprints.

He was walking home when he was set upon by Walker, a decorator, and Pickford, who is unemployed. Judge Brian Barker said their only intention was "homophobic thuggery".

Sheri Dobrowski, the murdered man's mother, spoke of the "unacceptable" levels of homophobia in society, which had in her view contributed to his murder. Reading from a statement outside court, and with many of her son's family standing with her, she said: "In a free and democratic society, Jody's murder was an outrage."

"Jody was not the first man to be killed, or terrorised, or beaten, or humiliated for being homosexual ­ or for being perceived to be homosexual. Tragically, he will not be the last man to suffer the consequences of homophobia, which is endemic in this society. We cannot accept this. No intelligent, healthy or reasonable society could."

Following the sentence, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) disclosed it tried, between April 2005 and March this year, to bring 600 cases with a homophobic element to court. Of these, 346 resulted in a guilty plea and another 80 were convicted after standing trial ­ a conviction rate of 71 per cent.

The CPS said it was concerned that more than a quarter of planned prosecutions had to be abandoned after a victim refused to give evidence, retracted it or failed to turn up in court.

For years "gay-bashing" was a hidden crime, rarely reported to police and not recognised by the courts. There are still no specific offences of homophobia, but judges can now use motivation on the basis of sexual orientation as an aggravating factor when fixing a sentence.

The penalty handed down yesterday to Mr Dobrowski's killers is thought to be the first time that has happened. His stepfather, Mike Haddock, said: " No sentence will be long enough. It is not a comfort, but it is justice."

Efforts to encourage victims to come forward are thought to be the main cause of the recent surge in prosecutions. There were between 130 and 150 convictions in 2003-04, and 317 in 2004-05. These still represent a small proportion of the number of complaints to police. Mr Dobrowski's killing was one of 1,346 homophobic crimes reported in London alone between 2004 and 2005, a rise of 9 per cent on the previous year. Last night, the gay rights group Stonewall called for the Government to consider introducing an offence of incitement to homophobic hatred.

According to Andrew Buckingham, the spokesman for the charity Victim Support, the actual scale of the problem is far higher than official figures suggested. He said: "There is anecdotal evidence that some victims may not be treated with sensitivity and respect by the police.

"Victims may worry that by reporting an incident they may be 'outed'. They may also fear intimidation and reprisals from their attacker and their family if they report the case."

    Homophobic killers jailed as gay-hate crimes soar, I, 17.6.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1089704.ece

Sentences for rapes after 'intimacy' cut

June 08, 2006
The Times
By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

RAPISTS will receive lighter jail sentences if their victims withdraw their consent to sex at the last minute, according to new guidelines issued for judges yesterday.

The proposals, from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is headed by Britain’s most senior judge, were condemned last night as sanctioning a two-tier system for dealing with rape.

The council advises judges that “date rape” or “acquaintance rape” is as serious as “stranger rape”. An offender who ignores a victim’s wishes is guilty of rape, it says. But judges are then told that where consensual sexual activity takes place before the rape, it “must have some relevance for sentencing purposes” — although this is not defined.

Six years ago a Home Office review rejected the idea of a lesser offence of “date rape”. Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the concept was now being resurrected “by the back door”.

Ms Hall said that the council, headed by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, was “talking out of both sides of its mouth”. She said: “The council has had to bow to pressure that rape is rape — whatever the relationship between victim and offender, whenever it is done and whatever the circumstances. But on the other hand, the same prejudices are being brought in by the back door.”

She said that the idea that a rape after consensual sexual activity should command a lesser sentence was also “insulting” to men. “It implies that they reach a certain point and are simply unable to stop — like a washing machine cycle.

“Women have a right to change their minds; or to go so far and no further — perhaps because they don’t like what they are being asked to do or because the man turns violent.”

Last year the number of rapists successfully prosecuted fell to a record low despite a rising number of attacks. One in 18 reported rapes end in a conviction, while in the ten years to 2004-05 reported rapes rose from 5,136 to 14,002.

Rapes where victim and offender know each other are thought to make up 80 per cent of the 14,000 reported rapes a year. Of those “acquaintance” rapes, the ones that involve previous sexual activityare hardest to prosecute. Juries often believe that victims “asked” for it — because of behaviour, drinking or clothing.

Levels of sentence will be left to judges’ discretion. The re-commended starting point for adult rapes is five years. The guidelines say: “Any rape is a traumatic and humiliating experience” and “whether the offender is an acquaintance, an ex-partner or a current partner is not, of itself, relevant to consideration of the starting point for the sentence”.

It also says that anyone involved in “consensual non-penetrative activity” has the right to refuse penetrative sex. An offender who ignores victim’s wishes “is guilty of rape”. But if an offender and victim know each other and there is consensual sexual activity, that must have an impact on sentence, it says.

The paper — the first guidance on sexual offences — covers some 50 sex offences from rape to sex with a corpse or an animal. At present 98 per cent of rapists receive a custodial sentence and the average length of sentence is 7½ years.The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, QC, said the guidelines should not lead to lower sentences.

“Indeed they recommend higher sentences if aggravating circumstances, such as the extreme youth or age of a victim, apply.”

Yesterday Professor Martin Wasik, chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, said the guidelines were “simply stating accepted case law.” The breach of trust involved in a rape by someone known to the victim could make it as serious an offence as a “stranger” rape. But the more difficult area involved rapes where the couple had sexual familiarity.

The panel took the view that there was a difference between someone who set out to rape a person he knew; and “a situation where rape occurs after sexual familiarity, up to and perhaps very close to, actual intercourse — and then the victim said ‘no’.”

CLAIMS AND CONVICTIONS

Reported rapes (male and female):


in 1995 - 5,136


in 2004-05 - 14,002

Conviction rates


in 1995 - 10%

in 2004-05 - 5.29%

    Sentences for rapes after 'intimacy' cut, Ts, 8.6.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2216046,00.html

11.15am

Court extends baby rapist's sentence

Thursday June 8, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

A man who raped a three-month-old baby had his minimum jail sentence increased by two years by the court of appeal today.
Alan Webster, who admitted raping the child while babysitting, will now serve at least eight years before he is considered for parole.

But his co-accused Tanya French escaped an increase in her original five-year custodial sentence.

The pair carried out sexual offences of the "gravest depravity" against a 12-week-old girl.

A panel of five senior judges, headed by the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, ruled that Webster's six-year minimum term was too short.

But Lord Phillips stressed: "His sentence was life imprisonment and such was his depravity that it was questionable whether the parole board would ever consider that he should be released."

The court ruled that, having regard to French's youth and the fact that she had been corrupted by Webster, her sentence fell within the range that was properly open to the sentencing judge "and should not be disturbed".

They had been urged to raise the length of the original sentences by the attorney general Lord Goldsmith.

He said the crimes committed by Webster and French had "shocked and outraged public opinion".

Webster, 40, and French, now 20, of Hatfield, Hertfordshire, raped and indecently assaulted the baby and took photographs of the abuse.

Webster was jailed for life in January after pleading guilty to rape, indecent assault, permitting indecent images to be taken of a child and making indecent images.

The judge at St Albans crown court set a minimum term of six years in Webster's case. French was jailed for five years and given an extended licence period of five years after admitting the same charges.

The baby's mother described the original sentences given to the pair as a "joke". She was unaware of the abuse until detectives visited her after finding photographs detailing the horrific abuse at Webster's home.

Webster, described as "evil and depraved", also pleaded guilty to a separate charge of indecently assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, said the cases of Webster and French were "exceptional in the nature of what took place and their depravity".

He told the judges: "You may think that, having seen the photographs, that what took place was almost beyond comprehension. The acts of those two offenders will have done incalculable damage to the baby and her mother."

    Court extends baby rapist's sentence, G, 8.6.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1793025,00.html