History > 2006 > UK > Justice (IV)

The £2m online gambling spree

that led to a nine-year prison sentence

· Financial adviser ripped off brother and 50 clients
· Cash went on bets on golf, horses and other sport

Tuesday October 31, 2006
Guardian
Helen Carter

An unregistered financial adviser who fleeced more than £2m from his clients to fund his internet gambling addiction was jailed for nine years yesterday. Philip Smith conned at least 51 victims out of the money, many of whom were elderly and vulnerable. He even stole £42,000 from his brother Christopher who had previously lent him money to pay off mortgage arrears. As his debts spiralled out of control, Smith simply did not care who he stole from, detectives claimed.

In total, Smith took £1.75m from clients and laundered a further £600,000 to fund his online gambling habit - with accounts at firms Betfair, Stanley James, Blue Square and Spread Ex.

Judge Peter Larkin, sitting at Manchester's Minshull Street crown court, said it was dishonesty on a "truly breathtaking scale". The judge told the 48-year-old Smith: "I intend to be blunt. You are a callous, manipulative and thoroughly dishonest man. As a financial adviser, your clients trusted you to handle their financial affairs with integrity and honesty. You breached that trust placed in you in a cold and calculated way."

He said many ordinary, decent hard-working people had lost substantial amounts of money as a result of Smith's dishonesty.

At one point, Smith had 67 credit cards registered with a single online betting company and it is thought that he squandered £2m by gambling on horses, golf and other sports.

He betrayed clients he had been friends with for 20 years, whom he had shared meals with and popped round to their homes for cups of tea. Some of them had stayed at his £170,000 villa in the Costa del Sol, or his holiday chalet in Porthmadog, north Wales.

The largest single theft from his clients was £185,000 from a woman in her 60s.

Smith also convinced his clients to hand over their credit card details, which he then used to set up online betting accounts. He raised credit limits without their knowledge and diverted many of their statements to keep them in the dark.

When the executor of an 84-year-old man's estate began asking questions about a missing £31,000, Smith produced forged paperwork and receipts suggesting that the dead man had spent the money on foreign trips and double glazing.

Smith stashed much of the cash in offshore bank accounts and enjoyed an opulent lifestyle on the proceeds of his crime, living in a luxurious £550,000 home in the wealthy Cheshire commuter district of Bowdon and driving a BMW 7 series car.

Smith bowed his head as he was led away from the dock past many of his victims sitting in the public gallery.

At an earlier hearing, the fraudster had pleaded guilty to 49 counts of theft, money laundering, false accounting and forgery.

Smith had worked as a financial adviser in a branch of Lloyd's TSB bank in Stockport, Greater Manchester, during the 1980s. He set himself up as a registered independent financial adviser in 1990, building up a network of 270 clients and investing £6m on their behalf.

Police believe his obsession with gambling, coupled with the mounting failure of his investments saw him succumb to the temptation of handling so much money.

His crimes went undetected for a decade because he allowed his registration as an independent financial adviser to lapse in 1997, leaving him unregulated. His clients were unaware of this and he had kept no accounts since his registration expired, the court heard.

On one occasion, he impersonated a dead person on the telephone to arrange for financial products to be surrendered. In doing this, he plundered money from an elderly woman who had recently lost her husband.

But by February 2005, a building society fraud investigator became suspicious about a joint account he had set up with an 87-year-old retired schoolteacher.

The investigator wrote several letters to the woman, but she did not receive them as Smith had diverted the post to his home. Social services were informed and it was discovered that he had plundered £111,000 from her.

Detectives went to speak to her and while they were there, Smith arrived and was arrested. During the complex police inquiry, he was questioned 30 times.

One of his victims, Dilys Booth, sought his services because he had dealt with her aunt's financial affairs. On her aunt's death, she asked him to invest her inheritance , but was conned out of £40,100.

Ms Booth, a 65-year-old from Harrogate, North Yorkshire, said: "I am not stupid, but he was such a good liar. Whenever I visited his house, he had the financial pages up on Teletext and I often heard him on the phone buying and selling shares."

Smith also stole £7,000 from her daughter Jeanette, who was ill and living on incapacity benefits. Another of his victims was a 36-year-old man with severe learning difficulties.

Only £500,000 went back on his victims' cards; Smith kept another £500,000 and £1m has been lost forever.

The prosecutor, David Friesner, said there were no hidden assets in this case. "It appears all the money essentially seems to have been gambled away," he said. "Some of it was returned to victims, but a lot of it was gambled away."

Speaking outside the court, Detective Constable John Ashington, of Greater Manchester police, said Smith was a man driven by greed, selfishness and ultimately desperation. "He has left not only financial chaos and devastation in his wake, but also dozens of decent and hardworking people feeling shocked, shattered, betrayed and angry," he said. "Some have started to suffer health problems after finding out what he has done."

Mr Ashington said the downward spiral of financial chaos in which Smith became trapped was so severed that in the end it appears "he simply didn't care who he stole money from ... He took £50,000 from a woman who was orphaned as a child and had been left the money by an auntie who had brought her up. He stole thousands of pounds from a member of his own family - and this after they had been good enough to lend him thousands of pounds to clear mortgage arrears."

    The £2m online gambling spree that led to a nine-year prison sentence, G, 31.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/gambling/story/0,,1935610,00.html

12.30pm

Jury discharged in Kiyan murder trial

Friday October 27, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

The jury in the Kiyan Prince murder trial at the Old Bailey was today discharged after failing to reach a verdict.

The 16-year-old defendant, who cannot be named because of his age, now faces a retrial.

The jury had been deliberating since Tuesday afternoon. On Wednesday the judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, said he would accept a majority verdict.

The case has been listed for next Friday, when a trial date is expected to be set.

The defendant admitted Kiyan's manslaughter after a play fight turned fatal, but he denies murder.

Kiyan, a promising footballer who played for Queen's Park Rangers' youth team, was stabbed in the heart outside the school gates of the London Academy in Edgware, north London, on May 18.

    Jury discharged in Kiyan murder trial, G, 27.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1933370,00.html

Bath girl's abductor guilty of rape

Friday October 20, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

A predatory paedophile was convicted today of raping a six-year-old girl he snatched from her bath two days after Christmas Day last year.

Peter Voisey, 35, was convicted at Newcastle crown court of abducting the girl and putting her through two serious sexual assaults in a car before dumping her, naked, in a freezing cold lane 20 minutes later.

Judge David Hodson warned Voisey he would be jailed for life or for an indefinite period when he sentences him on December 1. The judge said sentencing was being adjourned for the preparation of a sex offender assessment.

The judge said the sentence would be decided after "the court can have a proper assessment of the risk you pose to the public at large".

Voisey, also known as Smith, had snatched the girl from the bathroom of the ground floor flat in North Tyneside where she lived, after getting in through an unlocked back door.

After today's verdict, a statement from the girl's mother said the attack was "every mother's nightmare".

She said: "My little girl was in the bath in her own home within earshot of everyone else in the flat, the back door was shut and I'd only just left the bathroom to go to another room when she was snatched.

"It's every mother's nightmare to think your children aren't safe in their home. You wouldn't think you would have to lock all your doors this early in the evening to protect your children from anyone entering your home uninvited."

She praised police for their work on the case. Some had questioned whether the attack had happened but the police always took the report of the attack seriously, and detectives knew of injuries the girl had suffered and the proximity of the unlocked door to the bathroom.

Swabs were taken and tiny amounts of DNA were recovered from the victim. The samples were too small to provide an exact match, but Voisey was found later to have a similar DNA profile to the elements recovered.

Crucially, a footprint found in the bathroom in the girl's two-bedroom downstairs flat partially matched his Diadora trainer. Mobile phone mast analysis also proved his handset was in the North Tyneside area, and not at his home in Blyth, Northumberland, at the time of the offence. His alibis, at first that he was away from the area, then that he was buying cannabis in North Tyneside, did not stand up.

The jury also heard a life-long friend recall Voisey confiding he wanted to "do something" to a child after the pair drove past two youngsters aged around six and eight.

The prosecution successfully applied for bad character evidence under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act to be put before the jury, who were told of a similar sex attack on a vulnerable 12-year-old stranger at a swimming bath.

Voisey had been jailed for three years, reduced on appeal to two years, for the 2001 attack, the jury in the latest case heard.

He told the jury at Newcastle crown court that he was sorry for the previous attack and was "utterly ashamed ... disgusted with myself".

He had denied having a sexual interest in children, and, weeping in the witness box, told the jury he had "most definitely not" attacked the six-year-old.

But the jury rejected his evidence and convicted him today on the 14th day of the trial.

The court also heard that Voisey, who had spent much of his childhood in care, carried out two break ins which had a sexual element.

Detective Chief Inspector Jim Napier said: "There is no doubt that Voisey is a serial sexual predator who preys on young and vulnerable children."

He said his view was that Voisey had been in the area looking for somewhere to burgle when he went into the flat and came across the girl.

"As the evidence built up against him, we became more and more convinced that he had committed this crime, which I can only describe as horrific. He was a total stranger to this family, he violated their home, he kidnapped a little girl to satisfy his own perverted desires and he has shown neither guilt nor remorse. Today's conviction should ensure that he is not in a position to harm anyone else for many years to come."

DCI Napier said, given the circumstances, the girl was making good progress in her recovery from the attack. "She proved to be a first class witness, especially considering her age, and the traumatic experience she had been through. "I was convinced very early on that the girl's account of what happened to her was not only credible, but also entirely feasible and the investigation proceeded on that basis."

He said that the sex offenders' register was a very important tool in helping to catch Voisey; he said he could not comment on supervision Voisey was under at the time of the attack, as the council was reviewing this.

    Bath girl's abductor guilty of rape, G, 20.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1927615,00.html

6.15pm

Court hears

of stabbed schoolboy Kiyan's

last moments

Tuesday October 17, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Promising schoolboy footballer Kiyan Prince died after a 16-year-old boy stabbed him in the heart after Kiyan intervened in a play fight outside a school's gates, the Old Bailey heard today.

The 16-year-old defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons because of his age, yesterday admitted the manslaughter of Kiyan,15, but denied murder.

The prosecution does not accept his plea to the lesser charge, and the defendant is on trial for murder.

Today Nicholas Hilliard, prosecuting, said Kiyan - whom a teacher described as "well liked by all who knew him" and "a gorgeous boy" - was attacked shortly after leaving his school, London Academy in Edgware, north London, on the afternoon of May 18.

Mr Hilliard said there was no evidence of any previous "bad feeling" between Kiyan and the defendant, who had been excluded from school.

Before the stabbing of Kiyan, who played football for the Queen's Park Rangers youth team, there had been some play fighting between the defendant and another boy, known in court as witness A, Mr Hilliard told the jury.

After Kiyan had told the two youths to "stop playing around", the defendant went up to him and asked "What's going on?", Mr Hilliard said.

Witness A told the court he had seen the defendant push Kiyan, and Kiyan push him back. The defendant then became angry, the witness said. "He said, 'If you push me one more time, see what I will do to you.'"

When he was pushed again, the 16-year-old produced a knife, got Kiyan in a headlock and stabbed him, witness A said. "He went for his leg and chest. He was stabbing everywhere. Kiyan made a painful noise. It was pretty fast."

The court heard that the defendant asked "Who's laughing? Who's laughing?" before stabbing Kiyan.

According to witness A, the defendant stabbed Kiyan once in the chest and once, he thought, in the leg, Mr Hilliard said. As the defendant went to stab Kiyan a third time, the witness intervened, the court heard.

A teacher at the school, Liejhe Hernandez, witnessed the earlier play fighting, during which she thought she had seen the defendant force another boy against a red car, snapping off the wing mirror. She called the deputy head on her mobile phone, Mr Hilliard said.

As Ms Hernandez approached, the defendant allegedly said: "You can't grass me up ... I was just playing."

After being stabbed, Kiyan had collapsed to the ground, Mr Hilliard said. The court heard he had tried to hide the blood as the teacher approached.

Ms Hernandez broke down in the witness box when she described how she found Kiyan. She said: "I saw a little nick on his chest and told him [Witness A] to apply pressure to that. I did not realise how seriously he had been injured at first."

When witness A was asked by police later whether he had thought the defendant was playing around, he replied: "I want to say he was playing about but I think ... he knew ... his friends were watching him."

Mr Hilliard said Kiyan was taken to the Royal London hospital but was pronounced dead. The fatal stab wound had passed upwards from the lower part of the chest wall into the heart.

The following evening, police arrested the defendant, who allegedly replied: "Yes, I know. But I want to talk to my mother first."

The defendant allegedly told police he had given the knife to another boy. Police later recovered a small silver pocketknife, the jury were told.

The 16-year-old allegedly told police it was accident. He said witness A had been "showing off his chest and stuff like that".

The defendant said Kiyan had punched him, and he had taken out the pocketknife and opened it. Kiyan had punched him again, he said, so he had grabbed him in a headlock. He had intended to wound him in the right arm "to leave a little cut there".

The court heard he told officers Kiyan had started swinging him about and he had "got him somewhere - I think it was in the chest or something ... I know I got him in the stomach and the arm - that's when it stopped."

He had been trying to cut Kiyan on the arm, he said - "just a little scratch there, but it went deep in ... cos I never used a knife before".

Police asked why he had been carrying a knife in the first place. "It was a little toy. It was like a toy I carried around every day," he replied.

Kiyan's parents, Mark Prince and Tracey Cumberbatch, were in court. The defendant, wearing a short-sleeved white shirt, sat at the other side of the court, behind his lawyers.

The trial continues.

    Court hears of stabbed schoolboy Kiyan's last moments, G, 17.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1924465,00.html

3.15pm update

Pupil jailed for murder of cystic fibrosis boy

Monday October 16, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A schoolboy who admitted murdering 11-year-old Joe Geeling after luring him to his house with a faked letter from a teacher has been sentenced to life in jail.

Joe, a cystic fibrosis sufferer who was described as a "little angel" by his parents, was stabbed to death on March 1 this year.

Michael Hamer, 15, pleaded guilty to the murder before his trial was due to start at Manchester crown court and was later told he would serve a minimum of 12 years for the killing.

The court heard that, driven by a sexual obsession, Hamer lured Joe to his house, where he attacked him with a frying pan and then stabbed him 16 times with kitchen knives.

Hamer put the boy's body into a wheelie bin and dumped it in a nearby park.

Alistair Webster QC, prosecuting, said Hamer had not given the court a true account of Joe's death and had tried to conceal it afterwards.

"The murderer targeted his victim, led him away by deception, carried out the killing with significant brutality and set about covering up his crime in what appears to be a surly, calculating way."

Joe's parents, Tom and Gwen Geeling, raised the alarm after he failed to return home from his school in Bury, Greater Manchester.

Police, firefighters, mountain rescue teams and members of Joe's family searched in freezing temperatures until late in the night.

At 11am the following day his body was found in a wooded gully in Whitehead Park, covered with twigs, leaves and dirt.

An hour after the discovery of the body, police arrested Hamer, then aged 14, in his classroom on suspicion of murder.

Hamer attended the same school as Joe, St Gabriel's Roman Catholic high school.

He was formally charged with Joe's murder on March 7. Since then he has been remanded in secure local authority accommodation.

At an earlier hearing he admitted killing the boy, but denied it was murder.

Passing sentence, Mr Justice Richard McCombe said Harmer had harboured "significant feelings of distress from the absence of a relationship with your father" and suffered a "significant degree" of bullying at school.

"I am now told that, within the last few days, that you have admitted to Mr Steer [Hamer's defence counsel] and to your solicitor that you made a sexual advance to Joe who responded by referring to you as 'gay' and threatening to tell others of what you had done.

"Joe, as you accept, had done absolutely nothing to encourage any such advance. The rejection of the advance was the immediate triggering event of what you did to Joe.

"You took away Joe's life and damaged the lives of all who loved him," he added.

Mr Webster later described Hamer as an "isolated" boy who had been bullied at school.

But there had been "no significant contact" between Joe and his killer before March 1, he said.

The court heard that Hamer used the school's system of older pupils mentoring younger ones to gain access to Joe.

He wrote a fictitious letter purporting to be from the deputy head teacher to Joe to lure his victim to his house.

The loss of their "very brave and kind-hearted little lad" had "devastated" the Geeling family, Mr Webster said.

Speaking briefly outside the court, Mr Geeling said: "It's taken us an enormous amount of time to get to this point, it's been a long, frustrating, agonising wait."

He thanked the police and the school and asked that the family be given some privacy in the next few days to help them "get through this stage in the ordeal".

Hundreds of mourners attended his funeral in Bury on March 31.

The Catholic Dean of Bury, the Rev Paul Cannon, who led the service, said: "When a child dies, we are inclined to say what a pity he died before he was able to blossom fully.

"When we speak like that we speak of promise rather than achievement and that is unfair to Joe. The most important thing about Joe is not what he might have achieved, but the fact that he achieved much in his short life."

    Pupil jailed for murder of cystic fibrosis boy, G, 16.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1923652,00.html

UK families' Guantánamo appeal fails

Thursday October 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

An attempt to force the government to demand that three British residents be returned from Guantánamo Bay failed today.

Three appeal court judges rejected arguments that the men, who have indefinite leave to stay in Britain, should be treated as UK citizens even though they were foreign nationals.

All the British citizens who were detained at Guantánamo have already been returned to the UK.

Rabinder Singh QC, acting for the families of the men, told a hearing in July that the men's detention was unlawful. He said there was evidence that Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el-Banna and Omar Deghayes had suffered torture at the hands of US interrogators, and that each was still exposed to that risk.

Mr Singh told Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Smith that the government's continuing refusal to act was contrary to the Race Relations Act and breached the rights of the men's families, who were British citizens.

Announcing that the court of appeal had dismissed the three appeals, Lord Justice Laws said the refusal to request their return did not contravene human rights or race relations laws.

The case went to the appeal court after two judges in the high court in London refused to quash the decision by the Foreign Office. It had been asked to rule that the men were entitled to help similar to that received by British citizens freed from Guantánamo in March 2004 and January 2005 after the Foreign Office made formal requests to the US.

The judges said they could not interfere with a Foreign Office decision that there was no duty to act because the men were not British nationals.

The US had indicated that it would not reject a request for release because of their nationality, and the sole obstacle was over security arrangements the UK would have to put in place afterwards, said the QC.

Mr Singh said each man had been subjected to arbitrary detention without trial: Mr al-Rawi and Mr el-Banna for three years and eight months, and Mr Deghayes for four years and three months. He said that the families of the claimants were experiencing intense suffering because of the plight of the men, which would be brought to an end if they were released and returned to this country.

Lord Justice Laws said that a generation ago the court would have said it had no jurisdiction over foreign relations policies of the government.

"More recently the line would have been - has been - that the conduct of foreign relations is so particularly the responsibility of government that it would be wrong for the courts to tread such ground."

He said the reason the courts had now moved into this area was the "legal and ethical muscle of human rights and refugee status".

"The prisoners at Guantánamo Bay - some of them, at least - have suffered grave privations. "In this appeal we should, in our judgment, proceed on the premise that the detainee claimants have been subjected at least to inhuman and degrading treatment."

But he said there had been no discrimination against the detainees either under human rights or race relations laws, and the claim could not be made that the foreign secretary failed to treat like cases alike.

Lord Justice Laws said the families' argument that their human rights were being infringed because of their separation from their husbands and fathers had also failed.

"This suffering is the consequence of the actions of a foreign sovereign state for which the United Kingdom bears no responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act," he said.

Amnesty International's Europe and Central Asia director, Nicola Duckworth, said afterwards: "The court of appeal has missed an opportunity to send a clear message to the UK government that it must fulfil its responsibilities towards all Guantánamo detainees, regardless of whether they are UK citizens or residents.

"The failure of the UK authorities to make representations on behalf of all UK residents held at Guantánamo Bay is inconsistent with the strong condemnation by a number of government members of the detention centre for its human rights abuses."

Mr al-Rawi is an Iraqi national and long-term UK resident, Mr el-Banna a Jordanian national with refugee status in the UK and Mr Deghayes a Libyan national, also with refugee status in the UK.

    UK families' Guantánamo appeal fails, G, 12.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1920794,00.html

2.15pm

Policewoman died in 'callous' shooting

Thursday October 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Agencies

Policewoman Sharon Beshenivsky was killed in a "deliberate, callous and unnecessary " shooting, prosecutors opening the trial of five men accused of her murder said today.

PC Beshenivsky, 38, was shot dead last November after being called to an alleged armed robbery at a travel agency in Bradford. Her colleague Teresa Milburn was shot at close range and badly injured.

Prosecutor Robert Smith told Newcastle crown court that the shooting had the "clear intention of killing".

Earlier this week, 25-year-old Muzzaker Shah pleaded guilty to PC Beshenivsky's murder. He denies the attempted murder of PC Milburn.

Four other defendants - brothers Faisal and Hassan Razzaq, Yusuf Jama and Raza Aslam - deny murdering PC Beshenivsky. Police are also seeking two other members of the gang, including Yusuf Jama's brother Mustaf and a man known as Uncle.

Mr Smith told the court that it had begun as a normal working day for the two police officers. "They, of course, did not know [that] before the end of the tour of duty one of them would be dead and the other seriously wounded," he said.

Jurors were shown CCTV footage of three suspects leaving the National Express travel agency and one shooting the two officers before leaving the scene. Mr Smith said the three men then ran off and left in a four-wheel drive.

He said the prosecution case against Mr Shah was that he had fired the shots that killed PC Beshenivsky and injured PC Milburn.

"All five of those in the dock are guilty of murder, robbery and associated firearms offences regardless of who pulled the trigger of the gun that killed PC Beshenivsky," he told the court.

The policewoman, a mother of three, had been a serving officer for nine months when she was killed.

    Policewoman died in 'callous' shooting, G, 12.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,1920842,00.html

Cardiff Three get £500,000 but no apology from police

· Force settles case over malicious prosecution
· Men jailed for murder they did not commit

Thursday October 12, 2006
Guardian
Vikram Dodd

Police are to pay £500,000 in damages to two men who served more than a decade in prison after officers allegedly framed them for a murder they did not commit, the Guardian has learned.

Two of the so-called Cardiff Three - who were convicted and jailed for the 1987 murder of a newsagent - sued South Wales police, alleging officers had fabricated evidence against them and suppressed material that may have exonerated them.

The force has now agreed to the payouts for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, which are believed to be the highest of their kind. Michael O'Brien received £300,000 and Ellis Sherwood £200,000. Mr O'Brien will also receive £480,000 from the Home Office for lost earnings and for the lost decade of his life, taking his total compensation to £780,000.

South Wales police is not planning to apologise or take disciplinary action against any of the 40 officers it says were involved in the case. Furthermore, despite more than £1m being paid out in compensation to two of the men for their ordeal, the force says it does not accept liability or any wrongdoing.

On October 12 1987 newsagent Philip Saunders, 52, was viciously battered with a spade outside his Cardiff home. The day's takings from his kiosk had been stolen, and five days later he died of his injuries.

The murder sparked a massive police hunt and 42 people were questioned including Mr O'Brien, Mr Sherwood and another man, Darren Hall. No forensic evidence linked them to the crime and they initially denied any involvement. Eventually Mr Hall gave a statement saying he had acted as the look-out man and that Mr O'Brien had held Mr Saunders down while he was hit. His statements to the police were rambling and often incoherent. At one stage, he said: "It's all bullshit".

According to court documents outlining Mr O'Brien's case against South Wales police, officers used Mr Hall's "vulnerability and malleability to secure a confession.

"They then dishonestly concocted and manipulated evidence in support of it against those he had named ... without regard to or concern for the truth of the same and out of a desire to obtain a conviction at all costs."

The men's murder convictions were quashed by the appeal court in 2000. In the case settled this week, lawyers said officers had "deliberately fabricated accounts of incriminating statements" against Mr O'Brien.

In a witness statement to the court, Mr O'Brien said: "I cannot begin to explain how I felt being sent to prison for a murder I knew I had not committed.

"It is very important for me to prove that my prosecution and conviction was not just an accident due to Darren Hall's strange personality but was the result of misconduct by police officers. I have a deep need for misconduct to be uncovered in public so that the officers will not 'get away with it' and everyone will know what really happened.

"This includes loss of liberty for 11 years 43 days and all the other hardships which arose from it including damage to my reputation through being branded a murderer and effects on my family life including divorce, separation from my son throughout most of his childhood, being in custody during the deaths of my daughter and my father and having to attend their funerals in handcuffs and effects on my relationships with other family members."

Recalling his repeated questioning by police Mr O'Brien said: "When I was in the corridor I would be handcuffed to a radiator at the bottom of the radiator so that I had to sit on the floor, I couldn't get up. The radiator was very hot. I asked officers if I could have a solicitor a few times but this was refused. I remember on one occasion an officer saying 'well you're not fucking having one, it's as simple as that.'"

He says he was taunted by police about an indecent assault he had suffered aged 17, when he was attacked by an older man, with one of the officers saying, "you enjoyed it didn't you?"

Mr O'Brien was 20 when he was arrested and says he is still suffering 19 years later: "Over the years I spent in prison I felt extremely depressed, suicidal at times. I also became very angry.

"I suffered from nightmares and was afraid to go out alone. I had panic attacks ... I found it very difficult to relate to my family and to my son after such a long separation."

Mr O'Brien's solicitor, Sara Riccah, said: "It is an absolute disgrace that Michael has not received an apology from South Wales police for all that he has suffered - and that, despite the massive sum Michael has received in compensation, not a single officer has faced disciplinary, let alone criminal charges."

In a statement David Francis, deputy chief constable of South Wales police, said: "We have consistently maintained our position that the officers who worked on the investigation into the murder of Philip Saunders did so in good faith and the force was not liable for malicious prosecution or misfeasance.

"Therefore, in accordance with counsel's advice, payment into court have been made in full and final settlement of the claims of Mr O'Brien and Mr Sherwood, without an apology.

"It is emphasised that this has been done without any admission of liability and in full and final settlement. Mr O'Brien and Mr Sherwood have chosen to accept the payments on that basis rather than going to trial."

    Cardiff Three get £500,000 but no apology from police, G, 12.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1920149,00.html

Law lords give media shield against libel in landmark ruling

· Public interest defence upheld in highest court
· Verdict boost for freedom of speech, say lawyers

Thursday October 12, 2006
The Guardian
Clare Dyer Legal editor


Britain's highest court handed a protective shield to investigative journalism yesterday, when it ruled in a landmark judgment that newspapers and broadcasters who act responsibly and who are reporting on stories of public importance need not fear libel actions.

The ruling in favour of a "public interest" defence for important stories brings English libel law more in line with that of the United States, where the media have traditionally enjoyed much more freedom to write about public figures as long as they do so responsibly.

Five law lords unanimously overturned high court and appeal court libel judgments against the Wall Street Journal Europe in December 2003 and quashed damages awards totalling £40,000 to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Mohammed Jameel, and his companies over an article which said the Saudi Arabian authorities were monitoring the bank accounts of prominent Saudis for evidence of supporting terrorism.

The judges ruled that the lower courts had been interpreting an earlier protective ruling in a case brought by the former Irish taoiseach Albert Reynolds too restrictively and set out the principles that should apply in future libel cases.

They held that where the topic of a media investigation was of public importance, relevant allegations that could not subsequently be proved true should not attract libel damages if they had been published responsibly. In deciding whether the publication was handled responsibly, judges with "leisure and hindsight" should not second-guess editorial decisions made in busy newsrooms.

Lawyers said the ruling considerably reduced the "chilling effect" libel law had long exerted on freedom of speech. Lord Hoffmann, delivering the leading judgment, said the question in each case was whether the media outlet "behaved fairly and responsibly in gathering and publishing the information".

If the journalists did behave fairly and responsibly and the information was of public importance, the fact that it contained relevant but defamatory allegations against prominent people would not permit them to win libel damages.

Lady Hale, one of the law lords, said: "We need more such serious journalism in this country and defamation law should encourage rather than discourage it."

Geoffrey Robertson QC, author of the textbook Media Law, who represented the Journal, said: "The decision provides the media in Britain with an increased freedom to publish newsworthy stories. It frees serious investigative journalism from the chilling effect of libel actions, so long as the treatment is not sensational and the editorial behaviour is responsible.

"The ruling also frees investigative journalists, authors and broadcasters to publish and defend stories without danger to their sources."

The law lords ruled that Mr Justice Eady, who presided over the libel trial in the high court, had been wrong to hold that publication was not in the public interest because it breached an agreement between the American and Saudi Arabian governments to keep the monitoring of accounts secret.

Lord Scott said: "It is no part of the duty of the press to cooperate with any government, let alone foreign governments, in order to keep from the public information of public interest, the disclosure of which cannot be said to be damaging to national interests."

The judges said the 10 steps laid down in the Reynolds case for responsible handling of a story, such as checking sources and seeking comment from the subject of an allegation, were examples, not hurdles for the media to get over.

The actual steps taken would vary with the nature and sources of the information, said Lady Hale. "But one would normally expect that the source or sources were ones which the publisher had good reason to think reliable, that the publisher himself believed the information to be true, and that he had done what he could to check it."

Mohammed Jameel said: "What the Wall Street Journal Europe wrote in February 2002 was that the bank accounts of the Abdul Latif Jameel Group were being monitored at the request of the US authorities. That was not true. Mr Justice Eady and the court of appeal ruled that I was libelled. The House of Lords ruled that I was not, because it was reasonable for the Wall Street Journal Europe to print something that was false. So be it. I was only ever interested in proving that the allegations were untrue."

FAQ Law of libel

What is the usual rule in libel cases?

If the allegations are defamatory, those publishing them must prove them or risk paying libel damages.

How was the Reynolds judgment in 2001 supposed to change this?

It gave the media a defence if the subject matter was in the public interest and was reported responsibly, even though the allegations could not be proved. One law lord, Lord Nichols, laid down 10 steps a journalist might take in deciding if publication was responsible.

What happened post-Reynolds?

The courts interpreted the 10 pointers as hurdles to be got over, rather than as examples or pointers. The defence rarely succeeded.

How does the Jameel judgment change things?

It does what Reynolds was supposed to do and gives the media much more freedom in how it reports important stories. In looking at editorial decisions, "weight should ordinarily be given to the professional judgment of an editor or journalist in the absence of some indication that it was made in a casual, cavalier, slipshod or careless manner". The defence still provides no protection for kiss-and-tell stories.

    Law lords give media shield against libel in landmark ruling, G, 12.10.2006, http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1920159,00.html

1.45pm

Man pleads guilty to PC Beshenivsky murder

Wednesday October 11, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

One of five men, on trial in connection with the killing of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, has admitted to her murder, it has been revealed today.

Mr Justice Andrew Smith, sitting at Newcastle crown court, lifted an order which had prevented a guilty plea, previously entered by Muzzaker Imtiaz Shah, 25, of no fixed address, being reported.

The four other defendants, Yusuf Abdillh Jamma, 20, of Whitmore Road, Small Heath, Birmingham; Raza Ul-Haq Aslam, 25, of St Pancras Way, Kentish Town, north London; Faisal Razzaq, 25, and his 26-year-old brother Hassan, both of Sebert Road, Forest Gate, east London, all deny her murder.

Shah alone was charged with the attempted murder of PC Beshenivsky's colleague, PC Teresa Milburn, who was also shot during the alleged armed robbery at a travel agents on November 18 last year. He denies the charge.

The 38-year-old officer was shot dead on the day her daughter Lydia was celebrating her fourth birthday.

On Monday, Mr Justice Smith told a group of potential jurors: "We are starting a long trial today. It is a trial about a shooting in Bradford last November in which a police officer called Sharon Beshenivsky died, and her colleague Teresa Milburn was injured.

"Five defendants are to be tried and the charges include the murder of the one police officer and the attempted murder of the other. The prosecution estimate that the trial will last six to eight weeks.

"Of course, that is only an estimate but everyone will be doing their best to avoid it going longer than that."

The judge added the case would be opened tomorrow morning, as he had legal questions to consider in the meantime.

    Man pleads guilty to PC Beshenivsky murder, G, 11.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1896753,00.html

2.30pm

Damilola's father protests at killers' sentences

Monday October 9, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies


The father of Damilola Taylor today questioned whether the eight-year youth custody sentences handed to his son's killers would act as a deterrent.
Standing by Damilola's mother, Gloria, Richard Taylor made the remarks outside the Old Bailey shortly after Danny Preddie, 18, and his brother Ricky, 19, were sentenced for the manslaughter of the 10-year-old schoolboy.

Almost six years after Damilola was killed and at the end of a third trial, in which it emerged mistakes had been made in the collection of forensic evidence, Mr Taylor said: "From the outset this case has been a catalogue of failures.

"Failure by the system to keep young people in school and off the streets, failure to prevent them from committing crime and failure by their mentors to give good direction and failure by the authorities to catch them sooner."

Mr Taylor told reporters: "Today's convictions will not bring back Damilola and we question whether these sentences will act as an appropriate deterrent to other potential criminals.

"With the spate of recent stabbings and shootings by young people for whom carrying weapons has become an accepted norm, we believe Damilola's murder reflects a crisis within our communities that is now out of control."

Earlier, Mr Justice Goldring sentenced the brothers to eight years each in a young offenders' institute. He told the pair: "Neither of you showed any regret or remorse ... You both left the victim to die ... Neither of you called for help."

The judge noted that there had been calls for longer sentences but said: "I cannot sentence on the basis of an intention to kill or cause really serious injury. I have to sentence on the basis of the defendants' ages at the time of the offence."

The Preddies were 12 and 13 at the time of the manslaughter.

Mr Justice Goldring acknowledged that Damilola's parents, who he praised for conducting themselves with "such dignity", might feel that the sentences were "inadequate".

Mr Taylor had said in a newspaper interview published today that he wanted the brothers to get a life term with a minimum tariff of 10 years - one for each year of Damilola's life. But the judge said he did not think life sentences were appropriate; he said he hoped the sentence would reflect the public concern about gangs bullying other children.

The brothers were handcuffed to a prison officer and both of them made defiant gestures, raising their hands and crossing their wrists as they were led to the cells. One of their supporters in the public gallery shouted an obscene insult at the judge.

The pair, who lived near Damilola on the North Peckham estate in south London, had denied killing Damilola by jabbing his leg with a broken beer bottle in November 2000, but they were convicted by a jury in August this year after a retrial.

An earlier trial in April had cleared them of murder and assault with intent to rob, but could not agree on the charge of manslaughter.

The exceptional decision for the pair to appear in the dock in handcuffs followed an outburst by Ricky when the brothers were convicted of manslaughter in August. He had to be restrained as, shouting and protesting his innocence, he threatened jurors and police.

Nigerian-born Damilola had been in Britain only a few months when he fell victim to the two brothers as he was walking home from the local library after school. He bled to death in a stairwell of the estate as local workmen tried to save his life.

A number of youths, including the Preddies, were arrested. Four were cleared in a trial in 2002. Hassan Jihad, 20, was cleared in April this year.

The Preddies, who had a local reputation for violence, were not charged until last year, when forensic evidence missed earlier, in the form of tiny spots of blood and fibres, linked the pair to the killing.

Today, before sentencing, Orlando Pownall QC, defending Danny Preddie, asked for mercy for his client, saying there had been no intention to kill or cause serious injury

Although he had spent only four months out of custody since he was 15, these other convictions could not be held against him in sentencing him for the 2000 manslaughter.

Nigel Sweeney QC, defending Ricky Preddie, said: "There is nothing any of us can do to remedy the loss of Damilola Taylor or ease Mr and Mrs Taylor's pain. They have suffered with conspicuous dignity."

Mr Sweeney said the judge had seen Ricky under intense pressure but others had seen a better side of him.

Mr Justice Goldring sentenced the brothers to eight years' youth custody, minus time already spent in custody: 523 days for Ricky and 330 for Danny.

    Damilola's father protests at killers' sentences, G, 9.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1891230,00.html

Double jeopardy killer jailed for life

· Courtroom history made in wake of change in law
· Murderer confessed after acquittal 15 years ago

Saturday October 7, 2006
Guardian
Clare Dyer, legal editor

A man previously cleared 15 years ago of murdering a young mother was jailed for life yesterday under changes to the double jeopardy law.

William Dunlop stood trial twice for the murder of Julie Hogg, a 22-year-old pizza delivery woman in Teesside, but was formally acquitted after both juries failed to reach a verdict.

Ms Hogg's mother, Ann Ming, who had waged a 15-year campaign for the law to be changed, was in court to hear Dunlop be told he would serve a minimum term of 17 years for the 1989 killing.

The case made legal history last month when Dunlop, 43, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to murder. While in jail for another assault he had confessed in 1999 to a prison officer, boasting that there was nothing anyone could do about it. The following year he was jailed for six years for perjury, but until the double jeopardy law was changed last year, no one who had been acquitted once could be tried again for the same offence.

Ms Hogg's disappearance in November 1989 was treated as a missing person inquiry until 80 days later, when her mother found her decomposing and partially mutilated body behind a bath panel.

Mrs Ming and her husband, Charlie, 81, travelled to London from Teesside to see Dunlop jailed. She sobbed as the prosecutor, Andrew Robertson QC, described her daughter's injuries.

He said: "The overwhelming inference is that the deceased rejected him and was subjected to a violent sexual assault."

Mr Robertson had told the court: "Now the law has changed, in large part due to the long and persistent campaign by Mr and Mrs Ming, who felt they and their daughter were being denied justice."

In her impact statement, read to the judge, Mr Justice Calvert-Smith, Mrs Ming said the shock and after-effects of finding the body after police had failed to discover it during a search "verges on the indescribable".

"To this day, I can still smell the putrefied smell which was our daughter," she said. "As a family, we are damaged beyond repair and will never be the same again as Julie will never return home.

"The love we feel for Julie means it is we who are serving the life sentence."

Ms Hogg, who was separated from her husband, had a son, Kevin, who was three when she was murdered.

He was not in court today but his impact statement described how his grandparents had tried to shield him from the truth by telling him his mother had died in the bath. He only discovered what happened when he was 13 and was taunted by other children at school.

Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said: "It is impossible to comprehend the shock and horror felt by her mother as she pulled away the panel and discovered her remains." He said there were signs of sexual degradation to the body.

The judge said he could not take into account violent crimes committed by Dunlop since the murder, but they would be considered by the Parole Board, which would eventually decide when he would be released. He must serve 17 years before release is considered, but could remain in custody longer if the board thinks him a danger to society.

Mrs Ming said after the sentencing: "I would have liked life to have meant life. Julie's murder has devastated our family and left us in turmoil."

    Double jeopardy killer jailed for life, G, 7.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1889795,00.html

Town clerk wins £58,000 after mayor's seduction attempt

Saturday October 7, 2006
Guardian
Steven Morris

A mayor tried to seduce his town clerk by inviting her on a walking holiday and when she refused took his revenge by bullying and threatening her, an employment tribunal ruled yesterday.

The tribunal at Exeter decided that the mayor of Chard in Somerset, Tony Prior, had a "sexual motive" when he asked Sally Bing to accompany him on a trip to Andorra. It agreed with Mrs Bing that after she rejected him, he took revenge by criticising her performance at work and, when details of the scandal came out, sent out a press release attacking her.

Mr Prior, 67, had told the tribunal that he fell for Mrs Bing, 31, after she separated from her husband. He said: "I started to become infatuated with her ... when we were standing shoulder to shoulder looking at a wall map of Chard. When she stood close to me, it sent a sexual thrill through me and that was possibly when I wondered whether she had feelings towards me."

During cross-examination by the tribunal panel yesterday, Mr Prior was asked: "Precisely what were you hoping for from the walking holiday?" As his 72-year-old wife, Margaret, looked on, Mr Prior said he had invited Mrs Bing as a "companion".

He went on: "If Mrs Bing turned round and said: 'Yes, I will go on holiday on the clear understanding it is open and above board and separate bedrooms', I would have said yes. If she was otherwise inclined, I would also have said yes."

Mr Prior conceded during the tribunal that he had let down Mrs Bing, his wife and the people of Chard. He said the events had left him "destroyed" in front of the people of Chard. "I have made mistakes; I do have warts," he told the tribunal. But he denied other allegations, including that he looked down her blouse during a council meeting.

Mrs Bing told the tribunal that after she turned him down, he criticised her in an annual assessment, overruled her on important decisions, had stand-up rows in her office and threatened to sack her. She went off sick with stress and moved the furniture in her office to give her an escape route if he was in there.

The tribunal in Exeter agreed that Mrs Bing, who was paid £30,000 by Chard town council, had suffered sexual discrimination and victimisation. She was awarded £33,697 against Mr Prior. She also agreed damages of £25,000 against the council.

Tribunal chairman John Hollow told Mr Prior: "You made serious aspersions on her professional integrity and impugned her character."

After the case Mr Prior said: "It is an appalling miscarriage of justice. I have no idea how I can pay. Margaret and I have been married for 25 years and the marital home belongs to her."

Mrs Bing now works for another council. Mr Prior resigned his post and was banned from office for nine months by a disciplinary board.

    Town clerk wins £58,000 after mayor's seduction attempt, G, 7.10.2006, http://society.guardian.co.uk/localgovt/story/0,,1889834,00.html

Livingstone Jewish jibe suspension quashed

Judge reserves final decision until later
Panel criticised for disproportionate action

Friday October 6, 2006
Guardian
Jeevan Vasagar

Ken Livingstone's four-week suspension from office as mayor of London for likening a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard was quashed yesterday by a high court judge.

Mr Justice Collins said it would be overturned regardless of the outcome of his appeal against the Adjudication Panel for England. "I have made it clear the suspension will be quashed whatever I decide on whether the panel's finding was correct." The panel censured the mayor for his jibe at an Evening Standard reporter, Oliver Finegold.

John Biggs, a Labour London assembly member, said: "I think that's the right decision. I don't agree with what Ken said but I think it's an issue on which he needs to be judged by the people of London."

The unelected panel which suspended the mayor was criticised for a decision his supporters described as disproportionate. "To use a panel like this is unproductive," Mr Biggs said. "Maybe the whole thing needs to be scrapped."

Mr Justice Collins reserved his final judgment on Mr Livingstone's appeal to a later date, saying: "It is not an easy case. There are certain ramifications, whatever I decide, which will affect other matters." If only the mayor had apologised, "we would not all be here". While there was nothing disgraceful about the behaviour of Mr Finegold, it had "stuck in his gullet" for Mr Livingstone to apologise.

The clash took place after the mayor attended a reception at City Hall to mark 20 years since Chris Smith became Britain's first openly gay MP. After being approached by Mr Finegold, the mayor asked him whether he had ever been a "German war criminal". On hearing that Mr Finegold was Jewish, he told him: "You are just like a concentration camp guard."

The incident took place as Mr Livingstone was being pursued down the street, after indicating that he did not wish to be interviewed, his counsel, James Maurici, told the court. It led to a 35-second exchange in which Mr Livingstone "made a number of remarks aimed at showing his disdain for the Evening Standard and the behaviour of the reporter who approached him after the reception".

Tim Morshead, counsel for the ethical standards officer who referred the case to the adjudication panel, argued that Mr Livingstone's remarks were not a joke and risked stoking religious tensions. He said: "It is not a laughing matter to persist in comparing being questioned by a journalist with the behaviour of a concentration camp guard, after learning both that the journalist is himself a Jew and that he is offended by the comparison.

"Remarks like Ken Livingstone's, if unchecked, tend to endanger public confidence in local democracy."

Outside court, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which brought the original complaint, said an apology had not been forthcoming and "we're not holding our breath".

Even political opponents have supported Mr Livingstone against the adjudication panel, widely regarded as meddlers in the democratic process. Damian Hockney, leader of the One London group and an assembly member, said: "The Mayor did nothing illegal. He was just offensive, and the only people who should bar an elected politician from office for being offensive are the electorate."

    Livingstone Jewish jibe suspension quashed, G, 6.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,1888867,00.html

11.45am

Race hate message man jailed

Friday October 6, 2006
Agencies
Guardian Unlimited

A man who posted racist messages on a website in memory of murdered black teenager Anthony Walker was jailed for more than three years today.

Neil Martin, 30, emailed at least six comments to the website - less than a week after Anthony was killed with an ice axe in a racist attack in Huyton, Merseyside, last year.

The site was set up by a school friend of the 18-year-old. Posting under the pseudonym Genuine Scouser, Martin suggested that white people should celebrate the murder, that Anthony's family should be burned and made references to slavery and a "banana boat".

After the verdict, Anthony's mother, Gee Walker, said she was satisfied by the sentence and did not accept a written apology Martin had sent her.

When he was arrested in September, officers also found 33 images of child pornography on his computer.

Martin, from Maghull, Merseyside, pleaded guilty at earlier hearings to publishing material likely to stir up racial hatred and to making indecent photographs of children.

He was sentenced at Liverpool crown court to two years and eight months' in jail for the race hate crime and six months consecutively for the child pornography offences.

Judge Henry Globe QC, the recorder of Liverpool, told Martin: "The intention of the website was innocent, honourable and well motivated.

"You accessed that website and you abused its use. You posted highly abusive, insulting and racist messages on the site."

During police interviews, Martin admitted posting the messages but insisted he was not racist. He told the officers he had intended to stir up an argument on the website but did not believe in what he had written.

Heather Lloyd, defending, said Martin had no history of racist behaviour and that he felt "deeply ashamed".

She said: "He was isolated and living in a fantasy world, spending hours on his computer in his room where his persona could be as he made it, good or bad."

The court heard that Martin had also created an internet profile using Anthony's name and photograph, and that he also posed as a schoolgirl on teenage chatrooms.

Miss Lloyd said her client had written a letter of apology to both the court and the Walker family.

Speaking outside court, Mrs Walker said: "After hearing what he said in those messages, I don't buy it. I don't accept it. He had time to think about it and he did it six times. I don't accept his apology.

"Hitler started with an idea, slavery started with an idea, so it is good that this was stopped in time."

    Race hate message man jailed, G, 6.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1889311,00.html

Wreck of merchant ship can be war grave, say judges

· Sisters' victory for father killed in WW2
· Final decision still rests with defence secretary

Friday October 6, 2006
Guardian
Clare Dyer and Martin Wainwright

Two sisters fighting to have the torpedoed merchant navy ship on which their father died during the second world war designated a war grave scored an important victory yesterday in the court of appeal.

The ruling in favour of Rosemary Fogg and Valerie Ledgard opens the way for others whose relatives were lost in merchant navy vessels sunk by enemy action while travelling in convoy with military ships to apply for their resting places to be protected as war graves.

Their father, Petty Officer James Varndell, 44, a Royal Navy gunner assigned to the cargo ship Storaa, died with 21 others when the vessel was torpedoed in November 1943 by German boats while travelling in convoy from Southend to Cardiff. In 1985 the MoD sold the salvage rights to divers from the Hastings Sub Aqua Association for £150, and the sisters feared that divers would be at liberty to disturb their father's remains.

Three appeal court judges, headed by the master of the rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, rejected arguments by the defence secretary, Des Browne, that he had no power under the Military Remains Act to designate the ship as a war grave because it was not "in military service" at the time it was sunk, as required by the act. Rosemary was 12 and Valerie just four when the Storaa went down in the Channel 10 miles south of Hastings. Yesterday's ruling does not mean that the sisters will definitely get their way, but the defence secretary must now reconsider their case in the light of the court's judgment.

Their solicitor, Richard Buxton, said that in practice, the court victory had "considerably widened" the scope of vessels eligible for designation as a war grave. He added: "This has been a three-year court fight but it has taken 60 years since the end of the second world war to get recognition for these merchant ships on a par with the Royal Navy."

Sir Anthony said the court agreed with the high court judge who had earlier ruled in the sisters ' favour that the defence secretary's refusal was unlawful because the Storaa, while travelling in convoy, was "capable of being regarded as in service with the armed forces". It was obliged to obey the commander of the naval ship leading the convoy and at the time it sank each ship was providing armed protection for both the cargo and the convoy.

The decision was welcomed by the sisters, both from Worthing, East Sussex, as a "marvellous" relief. Mrs Fogg, a retired Church Army organiser, said: "I am very pleased if the decision opens the way to other families to ask for their loved ones' ships to be designated as graves. I definitely hope that they will."

Mrs Ledgard, a former trade union organiser, said: "It's the right end to a battle that should never have had to go on so long. We're very pleased indeed - not just with the recognition that our father died on military service but with the respect that this decision pays to his merchant navy compatriots. The ministry has still got 21 days to consider an appeal to the House of Lords but we can't believe they would do that."

Peter Marsden, of Hastings's Shipwreck Heritage Centre, who began the campaign for designation seven years ago, said: "This is a landmark although we're not quite there yet. The court has ruled that the Storaa is eligible but now the defence secretary has to decide whether or not to designate her. We are sure that he will, because she fits all his ministry's requirements for a war grave, but we are not popping the champagne corks until he does."

Mr Marsden criticised the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for ruling out protection on the different ground that the wreck was "not historic".

He said: "It is ridiculous to say that - her history is quite remarkable. She was a basic, battered old Danish steamboat which was interned in Morocco earlier in the war before she ended up fighting ... in the Channel convoy."

    Wreck of merchant ship can be war grave, say judges, G, 6.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,1888850,00.html

5pm

Leader of £5m people smuggling ring jailed

Wednesday October 4, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A ringleader of what Scotland Yard has called the biggest people smuggling network it has ever encountered was jailed for eight and a half years today.

Turkish national Ramazan Zorlu, 43, was sentenced at Croydon crown court after pleading guilty at an earlier hearing to his role in the highly lucrative ring.

Reports have claimed that the network was responsible for bringing thousands of illegal immigrants into the UK and police estimated the gang had made around £5m.

Nine other people have been arrested in connection with the investigation and have also admitted smuggling offences.

Zorlu ran the smuggling enterprise with two other Turkish nationals, Ali Riza Gun and Hassan Eroglu, both 47. Gun was due to be sentenced today but will now be sentenced at a later date while Eroglu was jailed for six years at an earlier hearing.

Sentencing Zorlu today, Judge Nicholas Ainley said: "I find it hard to conceive of a more serious case of this type of offence coming before the courts."

The racket was smashed by police in a series of raids in October last year which marked the culmination of Operation Bluesky, Scotland Yard's largest investigation of people smuggling. It was coordinated by the Metropolitan police and involved law enforcement agencies in 21 other countries.

Outside court after today's sentencing, a police spokeswoman said that the people smugglers had believed incorrectly that they were "untouchable by the law".

She said the gang used 37 mobile phones to try to evade detection. Asylum seekers were charged up to £14,000 each to be smuggled into the UK.

The spokeswoman said the people who were smuggled, sometimes in secret lorry compartments, were put in dangerous conditions, sometimes spending days hidden without food.

Law enforcement officials from France, Italy, Holland, Belgium and Denmark, and Europol all contributed to the investigation. The raids were carried out at houses and business premises across London in Enfield, Bexleyheath, Barnet, Haringey, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Hammersmith.

    Leader of £5m people smuggling ring jailed, G, 4.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,,1887582,00.html

4.15pm

Man denies snatching girl from bath

Tuesday October 3, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A man accused of snatching a six-year-old girl from her bath and raping her wrote in his diary on the day of the attack: "Phew, it's over, chill now," a court heard today.

Peter Voisey, 37, of Blyth, Northumberland, denies abduction, rape and sexual assault of the girl in north Tyneside on December 27 last year.

In a police interview, Mr Voisey explained that the diary entry referred to his relief that Christmas was over.

"Was it, however, a reference to what he had done that day, something about which he had been thinking for some time?" James Goss QC, prosecuting, asked the jury at Newcastle crown court.

A major police investigation was launched after the girl was found naked in a freezing street in North Shields, Tyneside. The abduction caused public outrage at the time. Three people were arrested in March on suspicion of hampering the investigation by providing the inquiry team with false names. Mr Voisey was arrested in April.

Mr Goss told the court that the girl was taken from the bathroom of her mother's ground-floor flat.

"At about 6.50pm a man entered the bathroom, told her to be quiet or he would hurt her, lifted her out of the bath, put his hand over her mouth, carried her to a car outside and drove off," said Mr Goss.

After he had sexually assaulted her twice in 20 minutes, the man drove her to a back lane about 300 metres from her home where he left her naked, telling her to face the wall, the prosecution said.

A nearby resident heard the girl's cries and found her shivering in the back lane, the court heard.

The resident, Geoffrey Brown, saw the girl had blood on her legs and wrapped her in a dressing gown.

Before the abduction, the girl had joined her brother in the bath. She was then left alone and could be heard talking to her toys.

The girl's mother at one point heard her say, "What are you doing here?", but she had not sounded distressed, Mr Goss said.

Soon after, the mother heard a screech in the back lane which sounded like a car. She called out to her daughter and found the bathroom empty.

Later the girl told police that the car was dirty and had dog hairs in it, and her attacker wore a hat, coat and gloves.

The jury was told that the defendant was familiar with the area because he had previously lived nearby and that mobile phone calls linked him to the area around the time of the abduction.

The prosecution alleges that partial footprints found in dirt on the floor of the bathroom matched a pair of Diadora training shoes belonging to the defendant. It also alleges that Mr Voisey spoke about details of the case which had never been made public to a friend's girlfriend.

The trial continues.

    Man denies snatching girl from bath, G, 3.10.2006,http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1886684,00.html