History > 2007 > UK > Justice (I)

4.45pm

Teenager convicted of doorstep killing

Tuesday March 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Duncan Campbell

The teenager who shot dead a young father on his doorstep in east London last summer was convicted of his murder today.

The Old Bailey heard that the killing had the effect of a "tidal wave" on victim Peter Woodham's family, while the detective who led the investigation said it was a reflection on the easy availability of guns in London.

Bradley Tucker, 18, of Canning Town, east London was told by the judge that he would be jailed for life when he appeared for sentencing. A second teenager was acquitted.

Woodhams, a 22-year-old satellite TV engineer from Custom House, east London, was shot four times at close range on the doorstep of his home last August. He died in front of his fiancée, Jane Bowden, and his young son, Sam.

The case caused uproar because Woodhams - who had wanted to move his family out of London - had been the victim of a knife attack earlier in the year.

His family claimed the attack was never properly investigated by police, and said he had suffered constant bullying and harassment from local youths.

"One minute Peter was our future and within seconds, he is our past," Ms Bowden said in a victim impact statement read to the court by the prosecuting counsel, Brian Altman.

"Peter's murder has affected all our family and friends, not like the ripple effect of a pebble in a pond but like the full force of a tidal wave.

"Peter's mother, Karen, hasn't been able to feel anger towards the man who pulled the trigger, but can't understand how one person can ruin so many lives.

"She believes this to the extent that the perpetrator has ruined his own short life too - compassion that I am unable to understand or feel at this time."

Speaking outside the court, Detective Chief Inspector Ian Stevenson said he was at a loss to understand how Tucker had moved from petty crime to murder. "It may be a reflection on the availability of guns in society," he added.

He commended the local community for coming forward with information within hours of the shooting, and repeated the Met's apology to the family over the failure to solve the earlier attack, which is now the subject of an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation.

The son of parents who separated when he was very young, Tucker left school without qualifications at the age of 13.

At 16, after getting into trouble with the police, he left his mother's home and led a disorganised personal life, staying with his girlfriend at weekends and with friends and relatives during the week. He worked spasmodically as a painter and decorator for his father.

Tucker had previous convictions for attempted theft from cars, assault, dangerous driving and driving while uninsured. The offences were punished by a series of fines, orders and disqualifications.

Tucker blinked back tears yesterday as he listened to the impact statement. Earlier, he had claimed in evidence that he had nothing to do with the knife attack, but that Woodhams believed he was responsible for it.

He claimed that, on the night of the murder, Woodhams had spotted him in the street and wagged his fingers at him as he drove past. He believed Woodhams intended to harm him, he said.

Tucker, who had smoked a "zoot", or cannabis joint, on the night of the shooting, claimed he was scared of what Woodhams might do. "I thought he was coming to get me," he said.

He claimed a friend who lived nearby had offered to give him something - "in case he chucks it, in case he tries to do something violent" - which turned out to be a gun. "I said: 'Is it real?' He said: 'No, it just makes a bang,'" Tucker said.

He said he accepted responsibility for what he had done. "I wish I could take it back," he added. "I feel sorry for his family. I have to face up to what I've done. It was my fault."

Immediately after the shooting, Tucker went on the run, giving himself up to police only after discovering that his name and photograph had appeared in the press.

Initially, he made a statement claiming that, although he had been in the vicinity at the time of the shooting, he had not been involved.

Later, as his trial approached, he changed lawyers and made a fresh statement in which he admitted he had fired the shots but claimed he had not intended to kill and had thought the gun would just "make a bang". He admitted manslaughter but denied murder.

The weapon he used was a starting pistol converted so it could fire homemade bullets made of screws or ball-bearings. One of the bullets found at the scene had been handed to police by a neighbour, but had been lost.

Teenager convicted of doorstep killing, G, 27.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2044102,00.html

No more Mr Tough Guy

March 27, 2007 6:30 PM
The Guardian
Nick Clegg

If politics is a contest of ideas, then today's announcement by Tony Blair of a new approach to the criminal justice system may just turn out to be a significant victory for liberalism.

It amounts to a recognition that Blair's tough talking decade-long experiment in populism has failed. It's just a shame it has taken so long.

After 3,000 new criminal offences, over 60 Home Office bills, and countless reviews, white papers and headline-grabbing gimmicks, the government may finally have come up with some ideas that could actually work.

By denouncing any liberal ideas on crime with the infantile allegation that "we're tough, you're soft" Blair had succeeded in closing down the debate on law and order. As a result, liberals have struggled to articulate an alternate message based on what works rather than what sounds good.

Today's announcements seem to bring an end to that tough-soft game, and accept our liberal alternative.

I welcome in particular the emphasis on mental health; the concept of hybrid prisons where intensive treatment can be offered is a very important departure. Liberal Democrats have been calling for such an expansion of secure mental health treatment for some time, instead of the endless expansion of prison places. Blair should have recognised long ago that we cannot build ourselves out of the prison overcrowding crisis.

The government is also mirroring our emphasis on cutting re offending, crucial given that Britain now has the highest levels of repeat crime in western Europe. Tackling the problems faced by prolific offenders - be they mental health problems, drug addiction, learning difficulties or otherwise - is the only way to actually cut their reoffending, and so cut crime rates.

This is no "soft" option - it's the smart option, because it works.

There remain, unfortunately, vestiges of the old Blairite reflexes in today's announcement. The notion you can achieve justice by bypassing, rather than strengthening, the courts is an old Blair favourite, which rears its head once more today in the expansion of "summary justice".

The government also makes reference to the expanded use of databases with no more than a rhetorical sop to concerns about privacy.

To secure the long-term legacy of this package, Prime Minister Brown would be well advised to jettison the remaining Blairite flourishes and concentrate instead on implementing the workable policies.

Our biggest concern, however, is that the government will not be able to deliver on the promises they put forward today. Good ideas have surfaced before, but when the tabloids said they were soft, or the money was needed for a new "tough" gimmick, the good ideas have been quietly shelved.

Now, with the financial squeeze on the Home Office, thanks to a budget freeze from Gordon Brown, it will require real force of will to reprioritise spending in the way outlined today. Where is the money for hybrid prisons when John Reid can barely scrape together the money for his promised 10,000 new prison places?

How will the government achieve such dramatic cuts in police paperwork? Our view has always been that technology like voice recognition software could make a real difference, and we hope they will follow our lead in recommending it.

As for non-custodial sentences, if the public is to trust these community punishments, they need to be visible and rigorous. We have proposed a new Community Sentence Enforcement Service, to supervise unpaid work in our communities.

There are practical problems to overcome in almost every part of the paper published today. But if the political will is there, they can be overcome.

All of us who want to cut crime must now hope that the commitment to the post-Blair agenda on crime - the liberal agenda on crime - is here to stay. British voters, fed on a diet of breathless Blairite rhetoric finally deserve an approach to crime which will work.

    No more Mr Tough Guy, G, 27.3.2007, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nick_clegg/2007/03/if_politics_is_a_contest.html

Analysis

New gloss for old policy framework

Many of the latest government plans to overhaul the criminal justice system have a familiar whiff about them, says home affairs editor, Alan Travis

Tuesday March 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Downing Street billed Tony Blair's crime plan as a renewed "get tough" drive against the 500 most prolific offenders but the detail of the 105-page document reveals much more far-reaching proposals, such as a check on every child when they move to secondary school to identify potential criminals.

The package has a battery of such future "eye-catching" initiatives, such as fingerprint-only access to MP3 players, crowd scanners that detect bomb devices, to league tables for courts and a future review of the police. It even advocates compulsory health insurance for all foreign visitors.

The level of detail and micromanagement by Number 10 of these Home Office policy areas suggests that even after 53 criminal justice bills in a decade, Tony Blair is leaving office deeply frustrated at the slow pace of reform of the police, prisons and probation services.

He makes clear that he believes that much more sweeping workforce reforms are still needed. This is not surprising when you start looking at all the extra staff that will be needed to run the early intervention, community punishment and other new programmes being contemplated.

But beyond the eye-catching initiatives, many of the policy ideas sound familiar. The renewed targeting of the most prolific offenders to cut a disproportionate amount of crime is a relaunch of a drive first announced by David Blunkett in 2004.

The results of that programme are not as rosy as Downing Street paints them today. Yes it achieved a 43% reduction in the conviction rate of the 7,800 offenders selected to take part in October 2004. But that meant they were convicted of 55,000 offences before they took part in the programme, and 31,400 while they were on it, hardly a major endorsement of a flagship government programme.

    New gloss for old policy framework, G, 27.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2044016,00.html

12.45pm

July 21 defendant

rounds on 'ringleader'

Thursday March 22, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

One of the alleged July 21 bomb plotters was today accused by a fellow defendant of planning to make his explosions "bigger and better" than those that killed 52 commuters in London two week earlier.

The accusation came in the trial of the six men accused of plotting to set off explosive devices on tube trains and a bus across central London.

The alleged ringleader of the plotters, Muktar Said Ibrahim, planned to set off four bombs on the tube and to booby trap a flat in a north London tower block, Woolwich crown court heard.

In a dramatic twist to the two-month trial, Stephen Kamlish QC, who represents another of the men, Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, repeatedly accused Mr Ibrahim of making genuine bombs.

"Your plan was to explode real bombs on the London transport system. These were not to be hoax devices," said the QC.

"Four real bombs on the tube and one block of flats, a tower, destroyed, going up in a ball of flames. That was your plan, wasn't it?"

"That's totally not true," Mr Ibrahim replied. The defendant has previously told the court the devices were dummies that were not meant to explode.

The QC said Mr Ibrahim Mr Asiedu, 33, of no fixed address, brought Mr Asiedu, 33, into the plot only the day before the attacks because "you lost your bottle at the last minute.

"You actually decided that you couldn't kill yourself for any particular cause, therefore you had to find a fourth person to carry out the fourth bomb[ing]."

Mr Kamlish said Mr Ibrahim set the booby trap in 58 Curtis House, New Southgate - the alleged bomb factory - to go off when anyone entered the premises.

"We say your 21/7 bombs were to be bigger and better in your twisted thinking than that of 7/7," said the QC.

Also on trial are Yassin Omar, 26, of New Southgate, north London, Hussain Osman 28, of no fixed address, Ramzi Mohammed, 25, of North Kensington, west London, and Adel Yahya, 24, of High Road, Tottenham, north London.

All six men deny charges of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life.

The trial continues.

    July 21 defendant rounds on 'ringleader', G, 22.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2040319,00.html

Foster mother inflicted 20 years of sadistic abuse on three children

· Authorities admit mistakes were made
· Two girls and a boy were treated as slaves

Wednesday March 21, 2007
Guardian
Steven Morris


A "sadistic" foster mother was found guilty yesterday of subjecting three children in her care to a horrifying catalogue of physical and mental abuse over 20 years.
Eunice Spry, 62, beat the children with sticks and metal bars, scrubbed their skin with sandpaper and forced them to eat lard, bleach, vomit and even their own faeces.

She treated the children, two girls and a boy, as if they were her slaves, ordering one of them to stay in a wheelchair for four years even though she could walk so Spry could claim benefits for her.

Spry, a Jehovah's Witness and a pillar of her local community, would punish the children because she thought they were possessed by the devil. Once she kept two of them imprisoned, naked and starving, in a room for a month.

She forced them to run up and down the stairs and "tortured" them by making them take part in the "invisible chair" game, squatting for hours on end until they collapsed - then they were beaten.

The abuse, which lasted from 1986 to 2005, was not spotted by the authorities and last night the Gloucestershire Safeguarding Children Board (GSCB), the body now responsible for monitoring organisations in charge of children's welfare in the county, admitted mistakes were made.

GSCB chair Jo Grills said the children were seen by "many different people" but few were a "consistent presence".

The statement added that information was not shared, one of the failings which led to the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbié.

Spry was convicted of 26 charges, including child cruelty, unlawful wounding, actual bodily harm, perverting the course of justice and witness intimidation. During the five-week trial she had denied any wrongdoing, insisting she had simply tried to instil Christian values into them.

Bristol crown court was told how the children, now young adults, were placed with Spry as infants by social services.

One of the young women, who came into her care aged five, told how the children were treated as "slaves", rarely allowed out of the house and told to lie about their bruises and scars.

Victim A, now 21, said: "We were regularly beaten. We were starved or made to eat blocks of lard, drowned in the bath and kicked down the stairs.

"Mum had an array of sticks and would beat us with them and kick us until we were bruised and collapsing with pain. If we screamed, she would push the sticks down our throats. The pain was unbearable."

She told the court her earliest memory was of Spry forcing her to eat a can of dog food as a punishment, and when she was sick, to eat the vomit.

Victim A was confined to a wheelchair following a car accident in 2000. She could have left the chair after six months but Spry kept her in it for four years so she could collect compensation.

The young woman said: "I knew I could walk, but she would have killed me. When I tried, she clobbered me and said I was being selfish."

One regular punishment was starvation. On one occasion Victims A and C, then 10 and eight, were locked naked in a bedroom for a month and denied food.

Victim C told the court: "If we wanted to go to the toilet we had to do it in the corner. I remember being made to eat my own excrement off the floor."

The abuse came to light in December 2004 when Victim A confided in a family friend, who took her to the police.

Kerry Barker, prosecuting, said: "What came out is a horrifying catalogue of cruel and sadistic treatment of these three children, both physical and psychological."

The family home was infested with rats and the children - who did not attend school - would often sleep on the floor without a mattress.

Spry, who had two children of her own, denied any abuse, telling the court: "I sweated blood for those children. These children came from not very good backgrounds and I wanted to bring them up like my own children. I didn't punish them physically but as a last resort I would smack a child's bottom.

Sentencing was adjourned for reports.

    Foster mother inflicted 20 years of sadistic abuse on three children, G, 21.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2038817,00.html

3.30pm

Schoolboys' murderer to serve at least 18 years

Tuesday March 20, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

A habitual cannabis user was jailed for life today for the "savage and brutal murder" of two school friends, promoting calls for a public health campaign about the side effects of the drug.

Tom Palmer, 20, will serve a minimum of 18 years.

A jury at Reading crown court rejected Palmer's admission of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

It decided instead that he was responsible for murdering Steven Bayliss, 16, and Nuttawut Nadauld, 14, known as T-Wood.

Palmer will serve at least 20 years minus the time he has served on remand since the killings.

Sentencing, Mr Justice David Bean said the victims "were boys with the whole of their lives before them - dearly loved by their families and popular with their friends".

Addressing Palmer, the judge said: "All this was wiped out in a matter of minutes ... when you killed them both in a savage and brutal attack." The judge said the most likely explanation for Palmer's behaviour was "a sudden and lethal explosion of anger, although what caused it remains something of a mystery".

A habitual user of cannabis and a fan of violent horror movies, Palmer murdered the pair with a hunting knife on a leafy footpath near Wokingham, Berkshire, in September 2005.

After the case, Rethink, a mental health charity, called on the government to fund a nationwide public health campaign warning people of the risks of cannabis use, especially high-strength skunk.

Palmer told prison doctors he had tried and failed to kick his cannabis habit in the year before the killing. After trying the drug at the age of 14 he was smoking it daily by the time he reached 15.

He did not smoke on the day of the killings but told doctors he had been using the skunk form of the drug regularly in the preceding weeks. Doctors told the court the drug had "exacerbated" Palmer's anxiety and the strange auditory and visual hallucinations he reported suffering in the months before the attacks.

Palmer told clinicians he had attacked the boys when they tried to comfort him as he had a severe panic attack.

Paul Corry, Rethink's director of public affairs, said: "We now know that cannabis can be a trigger for mental health problems and smoking it under the age of 18 can double people's chances of developing psychosis.

"The government must invest in a wide scale public health campaign so that young people know cannabis is not risk-free."

A Rethink spokeswoman added: "The fact that skunk is so much stronger than cannabis was 30 years ago certainly has had an impact on young people's mental health.

"The fact that it is a different drug means it has a different, and potentially more serious, effect."

A Home Office spokesman said use of the drug had fallen by almost one-quarter since 1988 and that the government had already spent £23m on raising public awareness of the dangers.

"It is an illegal and harmful drug and should not be taken. We have spent quite a bit of money educating people on the dangers of cannabis," he said. The jury were told that Palmer's personality appeared to change in the months before the killings.

One friend became concerned when he discovered Palmer had used one of his knives to carve swastikas into his chest. After killing the boys, Palmer called police to say two people had been "cut a little bit" before handing himself in.

Police found the two schoolboys' bloodied bodies in woods. They were lying in the foetal position with their heads so close they were almost touching.

Steven's blue BMX bike lay discarded nearby and he was still clutching his rucksack. Palmer later told officers he carried out the attack after the two boys mocked him about his odd eating habits and his parents' divorce.

The jury heard that Steven and T-Wood were in a group of about 15 friends in Wokingham who would meet in the woods to drink alcohol and smoke cannabis.

Palmer would sometimes video them copying stunts from the Jackass television programme, jumping into bushes and messing around.

The court heard that Palmer had a fascination with knives, buying the one he killed the boys with from a local sports shop. In the days before the deaths, Palmer repeatedly watched a DVD about a serial killer who filmed himself stabbing his victims to death, the court heard.

A consultant psychiatrist, Dr Robert Ferris, who has been treating Palmer since his arrest, told the jury his patient had started to believe he was at serious risk from people who wanted to hurt him.

Dr Ferris said: "I believe his state of mind at the time of the killings was not normal. This was exacerbated, but not caused, by cannabis."

    Schoolboys' murderer to serve at least 18 years, G, 20.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2038575,00.html

Sally Clark, mother wrongly convicted of killing her sons, found dead at home

· Family says she never recovered from court case
· Cause of death to be determined by coroner

Saturday March 17, 2007
Guardian
Thair Shaikh

Sally Clark, the solicitor wrongly convicted of murdering her two baby sons, was found dead by her family at her home yesterday.

Mrs Clark, 42, who served three years of a life sentence after being found guilty of smothering 11-week-old Christopher in 1996 and shaking eight-week-old Harry to death two years later, died during the night, said Sue Stapeley, a spokeswoman for the family. No cause of death was given.

Mrs Clark's family said in a statement: "Sadly, she never fully recovered from the effects of this appalling miscarriage of justice. Sally ... was a loving and talented wife, mother, daughter and friend."

Ms Stapeley said: "She was not suffering from any kind of disease at the time of her death, but she was not in the best of health." She said the matter was in the hands of the coroner.

Angela Cannings, 42, who served 18 months in prison after being wrongly convicted of killing two of her babies, said: "I'm so angry. This lady suffered so much, now she's died, I'm just shocked and stunned. She had found it increasingly difficult to accept what had happened to her. She was very vulnerable."

John Batt, a solicitor and writer who was a member of Mrs Clark's defence team and wrote a book about her ordeal, Stolen Innocence, said last night that she had never got over the deaths of her children. "I spoke to her this week ... she would have good days and bad days, but I don't think you ever can ever recover from something like that. Imagine being in jail where everyone thinks you are the scum of the earth, the lowest human being that walks the earth. The thick end of it is that she lost five to six years of her life in what was state-sponsored torture."

Mrs Clark, who was originally from Wilmslow, Cheshire, before moving to Chelmsford in Essex, had been convicted at Chester crown court in 1999.

When Christopher died in 1996, experts assumed it had been because of respiratory problems. Two years later, she found Harry dead, slumped with his head forward.

Professor Sir Roy Meadow, the controversial paediatrician, an expert witness at the trial, told the jury the chance of two children in an affluent family suffering cot death was "one in 73m". The Royal Statistical Society disagreed and wrote to the lord chancellor saying there was "no statistical basis" for the figure. Experts now believe the risk could be anywhere between one in 100 and one in 8,500.

In 2002 the criminal cases review commission, which reviews potential miscarriages of justice, referred the case back to the appeal court after it emerged there was clear evidence of a staphylococcus aureus infection that had spread as far as Harry's cerebral spinal fluid.

Mrs Clark was released in January 2003 after three judges quashed her convictions in the court of appeal in London. She had always maintained that her children had died of cot death syndrome.

The court had been told by Mrs Clark's QC that they had believed there was no evidence of infection. In fact, it appeared that the evidence had been known to the prosecution pathologist, Alan Williams - but not to other medical witnesses, police or lawyers - since February 1998.

At the time of her release, she said: "Today is not a victory. We are not victorious. There are no winners here. We have all lost out."

Last night, Mrs Cannings said she and her family had also struggled to cope after she was freed from prison. "When I was first released in December 2003 we went back to Salisbury and none of the authorities, social services, police, doctors involved before I went into prison, nobody came to see us.

"We came to Cornwall in April 2004 and we had to go to the authorities for help; nobody came to us. This is where I get angry for us as a family and the Clarks. It's almost 'oh well she's free, go home to your husband you will be fine'. It's so wrong."

In December 2005 Alan Williams was struck off the list of Home Office pathologists. Professor Meadow, now retired, was struck off by the GMC in July 2005 but reinstated by the court of appeal last October. It backed a high court ruling that he was not guilty of serious professional misconduct. His evidence had also helped to convict Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony in cot death cases; both were also freed on appeal.

Timeline

December 1996 Sally Clark's son Christopher, aged 11 weeks, is found dead while her husband is out

January 1998 Her second son, Harry, dies, aged eight weeks

February 1998 Mrs Clark is arrested

October 1999 Mrs Clark's trial begins at Chester crown court. Professor Roy Meadow appears as a witness, telling the jury there is a "one in 73m" chance of two children dying from cot deaths in an affluent family

November 1999 Mrs Clark is found guilty and given two life sentences

October 2000 First appeal fails

January 2003 Mrs Clark's conviction quashed by the court of appeal

June 2005 Prof Meadow appears before the GMC in relation to his evidence at Mrs Clark's trial

August 2005 Prof Meadow lodges an appeal in the high court against a decision by the GMC to strike him off

January 2006 Prof Meadow launches his high court challenge

February 2006 Prof Meadow wins his appeal against being struck off

March 2007 Sally Clark dies

    Sally Clark, mother wrongly convicted of killing her sons, found dead at home, G, 17.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2036295,00.html

Devices used in July 21 attacks were deliberately made not to explode, alleged bomber tells court

· Explosive taken on bus 'had been watered down'
· Aim said to be protest over Iraq, not to kill Londoners

Saturday March 17, 2007
Guardian
Sandra Laville, crime correspondent

The man "principally responsible" for creating the explosive devices used in the failed "terrorist attacks" on London in the summer of 2005 defended his actions for the first time in public yesterday. Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29, the alleged bomber of the number 26 bus, took to the witness box at Woolwich crown court to explain that he made the devices in such a way that they would not explode.

At the start of the defence case, Mr Ibrahim was asked by his counsel to explain in a "very short sentence" why he had carried the device on to the bus on July 21 2005. He replied: "To protest against the plight of Muslims everywhere, especially in Iraq."

Mr Ibrahim was the first of the suspects defending in the witness box after nearly nine weeks in which the Crown has judged the six July 21 defendants as Islamist extremists committed to blowing themselves up so as to kill and maim scores of people on the London transport system.

With his right hand on the Qur'an, he swore to Allah on telling the truth.

His lawyer, George Carter Stephenson QC, said Mr Ibrahim accepted he had been the person on the bus that day, in Hackney, east London, filmed on CCTV, and carrying a "device". "Did you intend or hope that that device would explode?" asked Mr Carter Stephenson.

"No," Mr Ibrahim replied. Mr Carter Stephenson asked: "Was the device an improvised explosive device. In other words was it to your knowledge capable of detonating?"

"No, it was not capable of detonating,"

"It is the prosecution case that on July 21 2005 you were to be a suicide bomber."

"No, that's not true," he replied.

The court has already heard that Mr Ibrahim was "principally responsible" for making the rucksack bombs which were taken on to three tube trains and a bus on July 21. A fifth device was found dumped in Wormwood Scrubs, west London.

The Crown says the rucksack bombs were made out of highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour, with a detonator of the high explosive triacetone triperoxide, all of which were created in the kitchen of the north London flat of the defendant Yassin Omar.

The Crown maintains it was just luck that the bombs did not explode, killing and maiming many people. Mr Ibrahim claimed that he deliberately diluted the devices' hydrogen peroxide with tap water to ensure they would not explode. He conducted tests to ensure they would only go "pop", he said.

His case is that he never intended to kill or seriously injure anyone.

Mr Ibrahim told the court yesterday that he had come to the UK in 1990 aged 13, taking refuge, with his family, from the war between his native Eritrea and Ethiopia. He attended school in north-west London until he was 16, passing two GCSEs before studying leisure and tourism at Harrow Weald College where he did not finish the course. The Crown alleges he had military training in Sudan in 2003, where he fired a rocket-propelled grenade. He denies he went to Sudan for that training.

Mr Ibrahim told the court that after working at two fast-food restaurants in Harrow he let his flat in east London for £1,500 for three months and used the money to go to Sudan to see relatives in January 2003. "Due to the war a lot of Eritreans went to Sudan to escape," he said. He spent two weeks with uncles and aunts in Khartoum before going to two other cities to visit other family members.

"Did you tell anyone that you learned to fire a rocket propelled grenade there?" Mr Carter Stephenson asked.

"No," Mr Ibrahim replied.

When he returned to London in March 2003 Mr Ibrahim worked at a shop in Dalston market, east London, where he sold handbags and clothes and earned £35 a day.

Hussein Osman, 28, Mr Ibrahim, Yassin Omar, 26, Adel Yahya, 23, Manfu Kwaku Asiedu, 32 and Ramzi Mohammed, 25, all from London, deny conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions.

The case continues.

    Devices used in July 21 attacks were deliberately made not to explode, alleged bomber tells court, G, 17.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2036162,00.html

4.30pm update

July 21 accused 'was protesting against plight of Muslims'

Friday March 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

The man "principally responsible" for making the rucksack explosives used in the alleged July 21 attempted terrorist attacks in London said today it was a protest against "the plight of Muslims everywhere".

Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29, admitted assembling the alleged bombs but said he did not mean to kill or hurt anyone, Woolwich crown court heard.

Mr Ibrahim conceded that he was the man on the No 26 bus who was caught on CCTV apparently detonating a rucksack on July 21 2005.

However, he said the device was incapable of causing an explosion and was intended as "a protest against the violence everywhere, especially in Iraq".

His defence counsel, George Carter-Stephenson QC, has already described how Mr Ibrahim tested the devices beforehand to make sure they only went "pop".

Mr Ibrahim, of Stoke Newington, north London, told the court he was born in Eritrea and came to the UK with his family in November 1990 aged 13 to escape the war with Ethiopia.

After leaving school at 16 with two GCSEs, he worked in a number of restaurants and met co-defendant Yassin Omar in 2000 when they were living in the same block. He said he bought a flat in Farleigh Road, Stoke Newington, in January 2002.

He travelled to Sudan in January 2003, staying there for two months and visiting relatives, the court heard.

Asked whether he engaged in anything in Sudan that could be described as jihadic or military training, he said no. He also denied telling anyone he had learned to fire, or had ever used, a rocket-propelled grenade.

Mr Ibrahim returned to the UK in March 2003 and ended up working in a shop in Dalston, north London, selling shoes, handbags and African cloth.

He worked full-time and was paid £35 a day, but used to supplement his income by selling the material at wholesale prices at markets in Edmonton and Edgware, the court was told.

Mr Ibrahim is the first of six defendants to appear in court accused of a plot designed to cause chaos on London's public transport network.

He and Mr Omar, 26, from New Southgate, north London, Mafo Kwaku Asiedu, 33, of no fixed address, Hussain Osman 28, of no fixed address, 25-year-old Ramzi Mohammed, of North Kensington, west London, and Adel Yahya, 24, of High Road, Tottenham, north London, all deny conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions.

The trial was adjourned until Monday.

    July 21 accused 'was protesting against plight of Muslims', G, 16.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2035920,00.html

2.30pm update

Soldier's friendly fire death 'unlawful'

Friday March 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke and agencies

The death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull, who was killed by friendly fire when US fighter pilots attacked his convoy in Iraq, was criminally unlawful, a coroner ruled today.

Andrew Walker, the Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner, hit out at the failure of the US military to cooperate with his investigation, in particular its failure to allow cockpit footage of the incident to be shown in court or to give full details of evidence provided by US air controllers.

Mr Walker said the act was a "criminal one, since the pilots broke with the combat rules of engagement in failing to properly identify the vehicles and seek clearance before opening fire".

He said it would have been easy for the pilot who shot at the convoy to take steps to confirm the identity of the vehicles. In failing to do so he acted "outside the protection of the law of armed conflict".

"I find there was no lawful authority to fire on the convoy. The attack on the convoy therefore amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."

L/Cpl Hull died and four other British soldiers were badly injured when the vehicles in which they were travelling came under fire from the pilots of two American A-10 planes just days after the Iraq invasion in 2003.

His widow, Susan, who has fought a long battle to establish the truth about her husband's death, burst into tears as Mr Walker delivered his verdict. After the ruling, she said it was "very disappointing" that the US president, George Bush, who she met in 2003 and who promised to help her, had not "followed through" on his offer.

"They [British and American forces] were all together serving [in Iraq]. But when it came to following up afterwards I think we were badly let down," Mrs Hull said.

Her lawyer, Geraldine McCool, who also represented families of British servicemen killed by US friendly fire during the 1991 Gulf war, said she had "not seen any evidence" that anything had changed in the intervening period.

The circumstances surrounding how the two part-time reservist pilots came to attack L/Cpl Hull's convoy despite it prominently displaying orange panels to identify itself as friendly have caused tensions between the close allies.

The US military has been accused of attempting to cover up embarrassing mistakes by classifying cockpit recordings of the incident as secret and refusing to make them or the pilots available to the inquest. Key passages of interviews with air controllers have also been kept from the coroner.

The Ministry of Defence said it was "very sorry for confusion and upset" caused over the inquest cockpit footage and vowed to make changes.

"We hope that the inquest has helped them gain a fuller understanding of the circumstances surrounding L/Cpl Hull's death," a spokesman said. "This inquest has highlighted the need for a more coherent approach to the management of documentation and evidence."

He said a dedicated team had been set up to liaise with coroners and bereaved families to ensure relevant documents were made available.

The contents of the cockpit tapes, which the MoD at one point said did not exist, gained a worldwide audience after they were leaked to the Sun newspaper.

The 15-minute recording (which can be seen here as Part 1 and Part 2) clearly shows that the pilots saw the orange markings on the convoy but decided they could have been enemy rocket launchers. When one pilot suggested a return to base, the other said: "I think killing these damn rocket launchers, it would be great."

The A10 pilots peppered the Scimitar and Spartan armoured reconnaissance vehicles with 30mm shells of depleted uranium. Although the convoy popped red smoke, a coalition identification symbol, the planes kept shooting.

L/Cpl Hull died three days before his 26th birthday. Two Iraqi civilians, who had been waving a large white flag, were also killed in the attack.

A subsequent US investigation concluded that the pilots, a lieutenant colonel and a major with no combat experience at the time of the incident, were not to blame. In the tapes they were told by controllers that no friendly forces were in their vicinity but were not given permission to open fire.

Major David Small, a spokesman for US central command, last month said the inquiry concluded the incident took place in a complex combat environment; that the pilots believed they were engaging enemy targets, and that they followed the appropriate procedures.

    Soldier's friendly fire death 'unlawful', G, 16.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2035714,00.html

Care home staff jailed for mistreating residents

Friday March 16, 2007
SocietyGuardian.co.uk
Press Association

Three care home workers who encouraged residents to fight and racially abuse each other were jailed for six months each today.

Over the course of a year the three systematically preyed on the mentally and physically vulnerable, London's Snaresbrook Crown Court heard.

Eulalee Hall, 51, from Highbury, 31-year-old Noleen Bailey, from Haringey, and Glendeen Nedd, 36, of Walthamstow, variously admitted six counts of ill-treating patients and one of wilful neglect.

The three were arrested after their "humiliating" treatment of residents was secretly filmed on a mobile phone by a colleague.

Passing sentence, Judge Alan Pardoe QC told the trio that those under their care needed to be looked after with "skill and dedication".

"There can be no excuse for the verbal abuse of the mentally disabled, still less the cruel ill-treatment of them," the judge said.

The court heard that the now closed Medina Road residential care home in Holloway, north London, was run by Craegmoor plc for Islington and Camden council. Its lone male patient was never targeted, but care for the three women residents was a different matter.

Janine Sheff, prosecuting, showed the court some of the mobile phone footage. In one clip, Hall could be seen encouraging a Down's syndrome sufferer to kick a deaf and autistic patient.

The barrister said separate video footage pictured Bailey and Nedd laughing hysterically as they encouraged the Down's syndrome sufferer to call the third woman resident they were supposed to be looking after a "white bitch".

On another occasion, the safety of two patients was endangered during a bus trip when a student nurse was left to look after them, the court was told.

Also in the dock was care home manager Diane Butler, 47, of Haringey, who was convicted by a jury of wilful neglect.

Sentencing her to 150 hours community service, the judge said it was clear she had carried out her duties in a "kind and effective" way apart from on one occasion when she heard of the incident on the bus, but failed to take any action against those responsible.

Outside court, case officer detective sergeant Paul Kingdon said: "I was appalled by what happened, but now I feel justice has been done.

"The three care workers deliberately took advantage of those who were supposed to be in their care. It is abhorrent that they have sought to humiliate these residents, who are particularly vulnerable due to their severe learning difficulties. This appears to have been done purely for their own amusement.

"The despicable behaviour of Hall, Nedd and Bailey, people who the residents had no other option but to rely on, has left the victims and their families alarmed and upset," he added.

    Care home staff jailed for mistreating residents, G, 16.3.2007, http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialcare/story/0,,2035900,00.html

5.15pm update

Millionaire crime boss jailed for seven years

Friday March 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Agencies

One of Britain's "most feared and revered organised criminals", who made so much money he was able to retire at the age of 35, was jailed today for seven years after admitting money-laundering charges.

Terry Adams, 52, from a notorious London-based organised crime family, pleaded guilty last month to conspiracy to launder his income from crime between 1997 and 2003.

He admitted the offences under a deal which meant his wife, Ruth, who also faced charges, was allowed to go free.

Presenting the prosecution's case at the Old Bailey earlier today, Andrew Mitchell QC said the charges related to conspiracy to launder £1m, but this represented just the "tip of the iceberg" of Adams's vast estate.

Adams and his family flew first class around the world, stayed in the top hotels and had a passion for expensive jewellery, Mr Mitchell said.

His daughter was educated privately and, when the family mansion in Finchley, north London, was raided by police they found half a million pounds' worth of art and antiques, almost £60,000 in cash in a shoe box in the attic, and jewellery costing £48,000.

Yet while Adams's total worth was estimated to be anywhere between £3m and £11m, he had no formal work history and was paying no tax or national insurance, Mr Mitchell said.

"It is suggested that Terrence Adams was one of the country's most feared and revered organised criminals," the lawyer told the court.

"He comes with a pedigree, as one of a family whose name had a currency all of its own in the underworld."

Adams was able to avoid conviction for years by keeping away from the direct end of the business, Mr Mitchell explained.

"A hallmark of his career was his ability to keep his evidential distance from any of the violence and other crime from which he undoubtedly profited," he said.

"By the early 1990s he had been so successful that he was able to retire, content that the wealth and status he had accumulated by the age of 35 would allow him and his family to live in the manner they were accustomed to for the rest of their lives."

Adams had "always thought he was above the law and his attitude to this prosecution is some proof of that", he added.

Adams was charged in May 2003, but a year later he was allowed to sack his solicitors and apply for new ones. He then applied for transcripts of 21 months of his bugged conversations at a cost of £2.7m.

In March 2005 he pleaded not guilty, but the trial nine months later was put off after Adams claimed he found a listening device in his sofa. Plea bargaining began in January last year, but his legal aid was again transferred to new solicitors.

He later delayed the case by consulting psychiatrists about his mental health, before pleading guilty last month.

Mr Mitchell said Adams had "been able to maintain his lifestyle without the need to demonstrate any visible means of support", in part by placing his money in the hands of other parties and nominees.

When his tax status was investigated, Mr Mitchell said, Adams claimed to be a consultant for a series of sham companies, but was unable to say where his office was located or give its phone number.

He is being sentenced along with Joanna Barnes, 38, from Finchley, north London, the widow of one of Adams's murdered associates. She was said to be a minor player, who pleaded guilty to fraud involving a £15,000 loan.

    Millionaire crime boss jailed for seven years, G, 9.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2030515,00.html

9.30am

Chief judge calls for shorter murder sentences

Friday March 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

England's most senior judge has renewed his call for shorter prison sentences and warned that Britain's jails risk filling up with "geriatric lifers".

The lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, suggested in a speech at the University of Birmingham yesterday that mandatory life sentences for murderers were compounding the prisons overcrowding crisis.

He echoed comments he made last year when he compared the 30-year jail terms meted out to murderers now to the "utterly barbaric" practices of flogging, branding and using the stocks by which criminals were punished in the 18th century.

He broke with the government's official line on mandatory sentences during his speech at the university, questioning the need for a mandatory life sentence for murder and suggesting that murder law reforms would not succeed unless changes were made in the sentencing regime.

"I'm not in favour of mandatory sentences full stop," he said. In many cases, the minimum term was double what it had been before current guidelines were introduced under the Criminal Justice Act, he said.

A 15-year minimum term is the lowest starting point for murder, though this is increased to 30 years for a murder in the course of a burglary, or if a firearm is used. Premeditation and other aggravating factors will increase the sentence, while mitigating factors, such as provocation, will reduce it.

"If sentences are to be just, then the effect of mitigating and aggravating factors should be very significant, so that sentences fill the spectrum between these two starting points," Lord Phillips said.

"I am not sure that in practice they do, and I believe that the starting points are having the effect of ratcheting up sentences in a manner that will be regretted many years hence."

The lord chief justice called for a "thorough rethink about the extent to which statutory guidelines are desirable", the Telegraph reported.

He added: "It may be that a just and uniform approach to sentencing in this field is one better achieved with the help of guidance provided by the court of appeal and the Sentencing Guidelines Council." The lord chief justice heads both these bodies. The government is committed to keeping mandatory sentences.

Lord Phillips said the effect of the sentencing guidelines in the Criminal Justice Act had been "in many cases almost to double the length of time that those convicted of murder will stay in prison. In 30 years' time, the prisons will be full of geriatric lifers".

Since Lord Phillips last publicly condemned sentencing policy, in a lecture in Oxford last October, the prison population in England has reached a new peak. Prison numbers have risen from 60,000 in 1997 to 80,000 now, with reconviction rates running at record levels.

He also said some elements of the media were inclined to treat imprisonment lightly.

"That is not to say that I do not recognise that there are certain crimes which require a sentence of that length or longer to protect the public, but I detect on the part of such publications an incitement to the public to exact vengeance from offenders that is not dissimilar from the emotions of those who thronged to witness public executions in the 18th century."

He referred to "utterly barbaric" practices such as flogging, adding: "I sometimes wonder whether, in 100 years' time, people will be as shocked by the length of the sentences we are imposing as we are by some of the punishments of the 18th century."

    Chief judge calls for shorter murder sentences, G, 9.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2030116,00.html

1pm

Extracts from Lord Phillips's speech

Friday March 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke

The lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, devoted most of his 9,000-word speech at the University of Birmingham to the complexity of agreeing a working definition of "provocation" and "intent". Both are key factors in distinguishing killings classified as murder from those of manslaughter. The former carries a mandatory life sentence under English law.

Through a series of examples from historic case law, Lord Phillips illustrated how murder convictions had been overturned by higher courts and the House of Lords where "their lordships have not hesitated to attempt to improve the law - more often than not succeeding in making confusion more confounded".

Lord Phillips said that he hoped - but was "not optimistic" - that the latest attempt by the Law Commission to reform the law governing homicide would be more successful. The Law Commission had "one hand tied behind its back" by the requirement that any review took account of the continuing existence of life sentences for murder. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, judges are obliged to fix the minimum tariff that killers must serve before being considered for parole.

"The effect of that Act has been in many cases almost to double the length of time that those convicted of murder will stay in prison. In thirty years' time the prisons will be full of geriatric lifers.

"The length of sentences imposed by judges is supposed to reflect the seriousness of the offence. The seriousness of the offence depends upon two factors. The culpability of the offender and the consequences of the offence. So far as the latter is concerned, it is easy to see why the consequences of murder weigh so heavily in the scale when it comes to the penalty."

The Law Commission recommendations would divide homicide into three categories instead of the two - murder and manslaughter - currently in use. The most serious category - first degree murder - would be restricted to killings with intent to kill or cause really serious injury and the defendant is conscious of the risk. Second degree murder, broadly, would include killings where the defendant intended to harm, rather than kill, or was provoked. For this category, a life sentence would be discretionary. The new definition of manslaughter would embrace killing by gross negligence.

"Whether more pleas of guilty are tendered than under the present law, and whether the prosecution will be prepared to accept pleas of guilty to less serious categories of homicide than those initially charged, is likely to depend in part upon the effect that being in one category or another is likely to have on the sentence. Some situations are particularly problematical. Take the all-too-common case of death being caused by a kick to the head in a drunken brawl. The issue is likely to be 'was there an intent to cause serious injury (second degree murder) or was there merely an intent to cause injury (manslaughter)?' I doubt this issue will often be one that it appears profitable to resolve by jury trial, and a plea of guilty to manslaughter may be acceptable, provided that it attracts a significant sentence."

Lord Phillips criticised the narrow terms of reference given to the law commissioners which hindered them suggesting anything other than "general proposals" on sentencing. He warned the current sentencing guidelines for judges would not work with two categories of murder as they are "premised on the existence of an intention to kill".

By way of conclusion, Lord Phillips said: "Sentencing is a major topic, and it is too late in the day to embark on it. Let me simply say that I have reservations about the current guidelines. The gap between the 15-year starting point and the 30-year starting point is immense. It is the difference between a determinate sentence of 30 years and one of 60 years. If sentences are to be just, then the effect of mitigating and aggravating factors should be very significant, so that sentences fill the spectrum between these two starting points. I am not sure that in practice they do, and I believe that the starting points are having the effect of ratcheting up sentences in a manner that will be regretted many years hence.

"If the Law Commission's proposals are implemented, then I hope that there will be a thorough rethink about the extent to which statutory guidelines are desirable. It may be that a just and uniform approach to sentencing in this field is one better achieved with the help of guidance provided by the court of appeal and the Sentencing Guidelines Council."

    Extracts from Lord Phillips's speech, G, 9.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2030368,00.html

Couple cleared of killing adopted son with salt overdose

March 03, 2007
From The Times
Dominic Kennedy

A couple who were jailed for killing a boy with salt cleared their names yesterday as their lawyer urged prosecutors to stop bringing cases that hinge on expert medical evidence.

Ian and Angela Gay endured 15 months in prison as hated child-killers, but they were acquitted of manslaughter and cruelty to Christian Blewitt, 3, after a retrial.

Their four-year battle to prove their innocence ended when a fresh expert emerged to say that the boy might have been suffering from a rare intolerance to salt, as reported in The Times last April.

The couple hugged in the dock after being acquitted. “Finally justice has been done,” Mrs Gay said outside Nottingham Crown Court.

Bill Bache, their solicitor, said that they had been through the most appalling nightmare and urged prosecutors to rethink the handling of mysterious child deaths. “There has been a succession of cases brought on the basis of medical evidence which is not clear-cut because very often it’s on the edge of medical science and we still don’t know all the answers,” he said “I don’t think these kinds of cases should come to court. They are so equivocal in terms of science that I think people should leave them alone right at the beginning rather than to put people through all this trauma.”

He said of the couple: “Their experience has been absolutely terrible, having spent some time in prison, where they were subjected to appalling threats and abuse. Thank goodness it’s all over for them.” He said that the Gays now just wanted to “get away and fall apart a bit”.

Prosecution sources responded by pointing out that their case against the Gays was that the couple had physically put the high level of sodium into the child. It was the defence that had brought expert evidence into the courtroom to provide a medical explanation.

The Gays were a wealthy childless couple in their thirties from Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, who were given Christian to adopt by social services. A month into a probationary period, Mr Gay rushed the unconscious boy to hospital, where he was found to have the equivalent of four teaspoons of salt in his system. He died on his natural mother’s lap in December 2002.

The Gays were arrested while Christian was still alive after a doctor heard Mr Gay call the dying boy “a liability”. A postmortem examination showed that the child had 11 small bruises to his scalp and a cut on his mouth.

A jury at Worcester Crown Court originally convicted the couple of manslaughter after accepting that they must have fed him salt for being naughty. The jury was not told that he had a history of adverse reactions to salt. His grandmother said: “It causes something in his body to react and makes him go funny.”

The Gays’ relatives scoured the internet for clues. An expert emerged with an understanding of the condition of “salt diabetes”, which has featured only three times in medical history. The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial. Dr Glyn Walters told the new jury that the boy’s osmostat, the part of the brain regulating the amount of naturally produced salt in the body, could have reset, making Christian retain more salt. “People can live normal lives because they adjust to the new level the sodium resides at. They carry on until something goes wrong.”

Sodium poisoning trials

Marianne Williams was cleared by a jury of poisoning her sickly 15-month-old son with the equivalent of three teaspoonfuls of salt because she was unable to cope

Petrina Stocker was convicted of manslaughter after spiking her 9-year-old son’s hospital drip with salt as doctors struggled to find the cause of his abdominal pain and lethargy

Susan Hamilton was convicted of using salt to poison an 8-year-old girl who survived but suffered permanent brain damage. Hamilton intends to appeal using fresh medical evidence

Source: The Times

    Couple cleared of killing adopted son with salt overdose, Ts, 3.3.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1464389.ece

BBC gagged over cash for honours inquiry

Saturday March 3, 2007
Guardian
David Hencke, Westminster correspondent


The BBC was banned last night from broadcasting fresh allegations in the cash for honours investigation.
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, obtained an injunction to stop the BBC proceeding with a news story for the 10 O'Clock News after a two-hour hearing in chambers at the royal courts of justice in London.

The BBC could only say last night that it had been prevented from broadcasting a story which it believed was a "legitimate matter of public interest" about an hour before the bulletin went on air.

The cash for honours inquiry was sparked in March last year by complaints to the Metropolitan police by MPs from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru that honours appeared to have been offered in return for financial support to the major parties.

A Downing Street source said last night that the first No 10 knew that an injunction had either been sought or granted was when they saw the 10 O'clock News.

A spokesman for the attorney general said the move was taken in response to a request from the Metropolitan police, who have been engaged in a year-long inquiry into the claims, which relate to the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.

He said police were concerned that the disclosure of information contained in the story could have harmed their inquiry.

Lord Goldsmith was acting independently of the government in seeking the injunction, the spokesman added.

"The application for an injunction was made by the attorney general this afternoon at the specific request of and in cooperation with the police, because of their concern that disclosure of certain information at this stage would impede their inquiries," he said.

"The attorney general acted in this respect completely independently of government and in his independent public interest capacity."

The Metropolitan police issued an identical statement to that made by the attorney general's office.

Yesterday's hearing was understood to be the first time that an injunction had been either sought or granted in the cash for honours affair.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader and a barrister, said the implication of last night's injunction was that Lord Goldsmith thought it possible there may be a prosecution in the cash for honours affair.

Sir Menzies told BBC2's Newsnight: "The important thing to remember is that the attorney general acts in the public interest and in particular he has an interest to ensure that no possible prosecution is prejudiced and no possible defence is prejudiced."

The inference of Lord Goldsmith's actions was "he at least contemplates the possibility that a prosecution of some kind will follow", he said.

Inquiries have focused on loans totalling tens of millions of pounds used to bankroll the Labour and Conservative campaigns for the 2005 general election.

So far, four people have been arrested in connection with the inquiry: Tony Blair's personal fundraiser, Lord Levy; Downing Street aide Ruth Turner; the Labour donor Sir Christopher Evans and former headteacher Des Smith; but there have been no charges.

The Crown Prosecution Service has said there is no evidence to support a charge against Mr Smith, who told an undercover reporter that honours may be available in return for support for the government's city academy programme.

Mr Blair has been interviewed twice by police, both times as a witness, not a suspect, and not under caution. He has not been arrested.

Scotland Yard have also told Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP whose complaint sparked the inquiry, that they have not set a date for the end of their inquiry. He told the Guardian: "They have told me that it will take as long as it takes and they have no final date to end the investigation."

    BBC gagged over cash for honours inquiry, G, 3.3.2007, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2025794,00.html

12.15pm update

Fayed wins a jury for Diana inquest

Friday March 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Fred Attewill and agencies


Mohamed al Fayed today succeeded in his long-running campaign for a jury to hear the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and his son Dodi.

In an unusual move, three high court judges overturned an earlier decision by the deputy royal coroner, Baroness Butler-Sloss, that she would sit alone without a jury.

The judges said jurors should hear the case because Mr al Fayed has accused "agents of the state" of masterminding the deaths. His lawyers had argued that an inquest without a jury would appear to "lack independence".

Despite the official UK police inquiry categorically stating in December that the deaths were "a tragic accident", he has consistently argued that his son and the princess were the victims of a plot by Prince Philip and the British establishment.

Speaking outside the court, Mr al Fayed welcomed the judges' ruling. "This is not the end of the road, but an important step," he said.

"The jury must now be allowed to hear the entirety of the evidence, but I fear there will be attempts to keep it from them. If so, that will be yet another battle I will have to fight."

He said he had "already had to fight for almost 10 years to establish once and for all how they died, why they died, who ordered their murders and who slaughtered them with such awful brutality".

"This is my duty as a father," he added. "I shall not fail Diana or Dodi, though the barriers erected against me have been many and formidable."

Mr al Fayed said he wanted to be sure the jury was independent, telling reporters: "You don't understand the tricks the establishment can play."

He told reporters he wanted Prince Charles and Prince Phillip to be called to give evidence at the inquest, saying: "Those are the people who really ordered the murder. I'm the only person who knows exactly what happened."

The three judges, Lady Justice Smith, Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Silber, rejected calls for Lady Butler-Sloss to stand down from the case, although she will no longer sit as royal coroner.

A spokesman for the Lord Chief Justice said there was "no question" of Lady Butler-Sloss standing down, adding that a pre-inquest hearing was still expected to go ahead on Monday.

Diana, 36, and 42-year-old Fayed died when their Mercedes crashed in the French capital's Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris on August 31 1997. The vehicle was being pursued by paparazzi photographers as it was driven from the Ritz hotel to Mr Fayed's flat.

Announcing their ruling, the judges said: "During the hearing, we were shown letters written to the press by Sir John Major and Sir Christopher Meyer, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, expressing concern about the harassment of [Kate] Middleton and pointing out the similarity between her treatment and that suffered by the Princess of Wales.

"They drew attention to the dangers of such behaviour and called for new sanctions against the paparazzi. It is likely that there will be a recurrence of the type of event in which the paparazzi on wheels pursued the Princess and Dodi Fayed.

"It is not only members of the Royal Family and their friends who receive this unwelcome attention. Any celebrity is vulnerable. Not only is the safety of the person pursued potentially put at risk, but there may also well be a risk to bystanders.

"In our view, occurrences such as this are prejudicial to the safety of a section of the public. It is possible that this danger could be prevented by legislation or other means."

Referring to Mr al Fayed's accusations of state involvement, they said: "If, when Lady Butler-Sloss determines the scope of the inquests, she decides that Mr al Fayed's allegation must be inquired into, the possible role of state agents would be an important consideration material to her discretionary decision whether to summon a jury.

"Indeed, we think that consideration might well be determinative in favour of summoning a jury"."

Last December, Lord Stevens concluded that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the deaths.

The inquest is due to begin in May.

    Fayed wins a jury for Diana inquest, G, 2.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2025184,00.html

Killer of PC Beshenivsky jailed for 20 years

Friday March 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A 26-year-old man convicted of killing PC Sharon Beshenivsky after a bungled armed raid at a travel agency was jailed for 20 years today.

Hassan Razzaq, of Sebert Road, Forest Gate, in east London, was sentenced at Leeds crown court for manslaughter, robbery and firearms offences.

He was found guilty of manslaughter but cleared of PC Beshenivsky's murder after an 11-week trial last year.

Three other men had already been sentenced to a total of more than 80 years in prison after the robbery, in November 2005. Razzaq's case, however, was adjourned in order to enable pre-sentence reports to be completed.

Muzzaker Imtiaz Shah, 25, was one of the "absolutely ruthless" key members of the gang that carried out the bungled armed robbery, which led to the death of the 38-year-old mother from Keighley, Newcastle crown court heard.

He and 20-year-old Yusuf Abdillh Jamma, from Birmingham, were told by Mr Justice Andrew Smith that they must both serve at least 35 years before being considered for parole.

Razzaq's younger brother Faisal, 25, also of Sebert Road, was cleared of the officer's murder but convicted of manslaughter, robbery and firearms offences. He was given a life sentence and told he must serve at least 11 years before being considered for parole.

PC Beshenivsky was shot and killed on November 18 2005 as she arrived at the scene of the robbery in Bradford, West Yorkshire, on the day of her youngest daughter's fourth birthday.

Julia Hodson, the West Yorkshire police deputy chief constable, said: "She was just an ordinary cop doing her duty, and her life was taken away from her by ruthless criminals."

Pc Beshenivsky was the first woman police officer to be shot and killed on duty since Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy in London on April 17 1984.

Her colleague PC Teresa Milburn was also shot in the street as the robbers escaped with little more than £5,000.

Detectives said after the trail that "very dangerous" criminals with no respect for human life had been taken off the streets.

    Killer of PC Beshenivsky jailed for 20 years, G, 2.3.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2025482,00.html

Life for racist gang who killed Asian taxi driver

Wednesday February 21, 2007
Guardian
Martin Wainwright

Four members of a gang of racists who stoned and stamped to death a British Asian taxi driver after luring him into a dead-end on a false call were jailed for life yesterday.

The teenagers, some only recently out of school at the time of the calculated attack on father-of-three Mohammad Parvaiz, were given long minimum terms by Judge Dame Heather Steel, who called the crime "savage beyond belief".

Jailing Christopher Murphy and Michael Hand, both 19, Graeme Slavin, 18, and Steven Utley, 17, she told Leeds crown court that the Huddersfield gang had been merciless to their 41-year-old victim, kicking him and stamping on his head as he lay dying in the street last July. "It is likely that the last words he heard were 'You fucking Paki bastard'," she said. The murderers had then gloated in a local pub, with Murphy saying: "I wonder if I've got Paki juice on the bottom of my shoes."

He and Hand were ordered to serve at least 25 and 21 years before parole was considered, as ringleaders of the attack. Slavin and Utley were given 17 year minimum terms. All had denied racially aggravated murder but were convicted a month ago after Hand changed his plea to guilty.

With them in the dock yesterday were two younger members of a "revenge team" which targeted Mr Parvaiz after a vicious quarrel triggered by white youths over a white girl going out with a British Asian boyfriend. The judge earlier lifted a legal ban on naming juvenile defendants on the grounds that everyone involved in the "dreadful incident" should be identified.

She sent Michael Beeby, 16, and Jason Harris, 17, both of Huddersfield, to 10 and eight months' detention and training, for violent disorder by throwing rocks at Mr Parvaiz's minibus taxi in the ambush. Judge Steel told the pair: "This is no ordinary case of violent disorder. It is quite clear each of you were on that night acting in accordance with a plan at least to damage the taxi and to terrify the driver and make him fear for his personal safety."

The trial heard that Mr Parvaiz had been caught up in the quarrel because his taxi was hired earlier in the year by the couple targeted by white youths. He had driven them to a house where a fracas broke out between teenagers from both communities in which Murphy's scooter had been damaged.

There was revulsion in Huddersfield and West Yorkshire after the murder, and 2,000 taxi drivers in the Kirklees district, which includes Huddersfield, stopped work for a day in Mr Parvaiz's memory.

Det Supt Tim Forber of West Yorkshire police said after the sentencing that many young witnesses had come forward and secured the conviction of the gang. He said: "I don't think I've ever come across anything so utterly mindless. There was a clear level of planning in this savage offence. It shocked the entire community and the sentences we see today reflect the seriousness of the offence. As far as Mr Parvaiz's family are concerned, however, the length of the sentences is not going to bring him back. The pain still goes on for them and it always will."

    Life for racist gang who killed Asian taxi driver, G, 21.2.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,,2017748,00.html

1.15pm update

Christening killer gets life sentence

Wednesday February 14, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

An 18-year-old refugee who shot a woman dead at a christening and fatally stabbed a student teacher in a two-week period was given two life sentences today for murder.

Roberto Malasi, originally from Angola, will serve a minimum of 30 years after he shot Zainab Kalokoh, 33, during a robbery at a christening party in south London and stabbed Ruth Okechukwu, 18, in the same area 15 days later.

Old Bailey judge Mr Justice Gross said it would be an affront to justice if the sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the two crimes.

The judge said Malasi's actions were "the more chilling" because he killed so soon after shooting Mrs Kalokoh, who was cradling a baby in her arms at the christening party in August 2005.

Nigerian-born gang members Diamond Babamuboni, 17, his brother, Timy, 15, and Jude Odigie, 16, were given indeterminate sentences for public protection.

They were convicted of Mrs Kalokoh's manslaughter and robbery and were ordered to serve a minimum of eight years in detention.

They and Malasi wore masks as they raided the party on the Wood Dene estate in Peckham to rob guests.

As Mrs Kalokoh lay dying with a bullet in her head, the raiders stripped cowering guests of valuables. The baby in her arms, her niece, was unharmed.

Mr Justice Gross told the defendants: "What you four did that night was evil. In a cruel irony, many of the guests had come to this country to escape the violence of Sierra Leone."

The youths had all denied charges in relation to Mrs Kalokoh's death but were found guilty in December.

Last month, Malasi pleaded guilty to stabbing Miss Okechukwu in September 2005 following a telephone row the day before.

He dragged the student teacher from a car in south London and stabbed her six times, including once in the heart.

Miss Okechukwu, whose father, Ben, is the pastor of a Pentecostal church in south London, was known as "Ruth-Less" because she spoke her mind.

Members of Mrs Kalokoh's family began to protest at the eight-year sentences for the Babamuboni brothers and Odigie, as the three were taken down to the cells.

They were visibly shaken as they confronted police and lawyers in the courtroom. The girlfriends of some of the accused started crying and shouting insults in the public gallery above.

At the end of his sentencing, Mr Justice Gross said he only had the power to recommend the deportation of Diamond Babamuboni after he serves his sentence.

He said he should be deported and that he hoped the Home Office would reconsider the cases of the other three.

An earlier hearing was told that Malasi, who lived in Peckham, had indefinite leave to remain in the UK and the other two defendants were too young.

Mr Justice Gross said: "This country has a long and proud record for offering refuge to those in need of help.

"From time to time, there are those like you who abuse this proud tradition. I strongly urge the Home Office to exercise its powers to reconsider its powers in respect of each of you.

"I would have concluded that your continuous presence is not in the interests of this country."

    Christening killer gets life sentence, G, 14.2.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2012886,00.html

Ex-BNP candidate 'spoke of shooting Tony Blair'

February 13, 2007
Times Online
Devika Bhat and agencies

A former candidate for the British National Party (BNP) stockpiled explosive chemicals for an anticipated civil war, and spoke of how he wanted to shoot the Prime Minister, a court was told today.

Robert Cottage, 49, believed that Britain would be brought to civil war in the coming years due to the “political and financial condition of the country,” Manchester Crown Court was told. As well as wanting to target Tony Blair, he mentioned shooting the local Liberal Democrat peer Lord Greaves, the court heard.

Opening the case for the prosecution, Louise Blackwell, QC, said that Mr Cottage’s wife, Kerena, had first raised the alarm, telling a social worker her husband had stored several crossbows and chemicals in his home.

This led to police raiding the house last year. There, officers discovered 21 types of chemicals which, when mixed together, could form explosives, Ms Blackwell said. Also recovered was a 300-page computer document called the Anarchy Cookbook which detailed how to make different types of bombs.

During the raid on September 28 last year, police discovered four air pistols and a number of crossbows with ammunition and a number of ball bearings which the prosecution claim could be used as shrapnel for explosive devices.

Mr Cottage, from Colne Lancashire, pleaded guilty at to one count of possession of explosives on the first day of his trial but denies one count of conspiracy to cause an explosion.

His barrister, Alistair Webster, QC, said his client was a former BNP candidate and had been the subject of threats. He explained his client believed the “political and financial condition of the country” would lead to civil war within the coming years.

He said Mr Cottage accepted the charge on the basis that the explosives were designed to deter attacks on his property, but added that this premise was not accepted by the prosecution.

A second man, David Jackson, 62, denies one count of possession of explosives and one of conspiracy to cause an explosion.

After interviewing Mr Cottage, detectives raided Mr Jackson’s home on October 1 and found a bow and arrow and two nuclear protection suits. Miss Blackwell said: “The prosecution say these two men together agreed to order these chemicals... and they intended to make a bomb with them.

“That much the Crown say is clear due to the information found on the computer. The bomb they intended to make would have had the ability to cause damage or cause serious injuries.”

A statement given to police by Mrs Cottage, who suffered from mental health problems, said that her husband held “strong views on immigration” and his membership of the BNP had driven “a wedge” between the couple.

The court was told that the pair had been married for two years but she had become increasingly unhappy with his political beliefs.

Quoting statements given to police by Mrs Cottage, Miss Blackwell said: “Rob believes there will be a civil war and the emergence of a new world order. Rob has also started stockpiling supplies.”

Mr Cottage, who has worked as a driver transporting physically disabled youngsters, boasted of how he wanted to shoot Mr Blair and Lord Greaves. Quoting Mrs Cottage’s statement, Miss Blackwell continued: “I have seen a change in Rob since he became involved with the BNP four years ago.

“Rob was becoming very radical in his views and opinions. The BNP made mine and Rob’s marriage suffer. It drove a wedge between us and we had a trial separation.”

Mr Cottage was described as a “very religious” man who was a member of the Church of England and who would “regularly quote from the Bible and read it every other day”. He would also listen to radio programmes on the internet on an American website which detailed conspiracy theories.

Mr Jackson, who works as a dentist in Lancaster and Cumbria, met Mr Cottage while attending BNP meetings, said the statement.

Mrs Cottage’s evidence was read to the court because she was unfit to attend due to her mental health problems.

The case continues.

    Ex-BNP candidate 'spoke of shooting Tony Blair', Ts Online, 13.2.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1380013.ece

4.15pm

Man charged with plot to kidnap and kill soldier

Friday February 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke and agencies

Five men appeared in court today charged with terror offences after being arrested in a series of raids in Birmingham nine days ago.

One of the defendants, Parviz Khan, is accused of plotting to kidnap and kill a British soldier.

The other four, Amjad Mahmood, Mohammed Irfan, Zahoor Iqbal and Hamid Elasmar, also face offences under the Terrorism Act.

The five defendants were flanked by eight security guards as they filed into the dock at the City of Westminster magistrates court.

Two of the men - including Mr Khan - remained standing throughout the hearing.

They listened intently throughout the hearing before district judge Daphne Wickham.

No applications for bail were made on behalf of Mr Khan, Mr Mahmood or Mr Elasmar and they were remanded in custody until February 23, when they will appear at the Old Bailey.

Bail applications were still being heard for Mr Irfan and Mr Iqbal.

Earlier today the defendants were transferred from Coventry to London in a police convoy.

This morning the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that Mr Khan was accused of plotting to kidnap and kill a member of the British armed forces.

The 36-year-old was accused of engaging in conduct "to give effect to his intention to kidnap and kill a member of the British armed forces" between November 1 last year and the time of his arrest last week, the head of the CPS counter terrorism division, Sue Hemming, told a press conference at West Midlands police headquarters.

Mr Khan was also charged with attempting to supply equipment for use in terrorism acts and making available funds or property which could be used for terrorism acts.

Mr Irfan, 30, and Mr Elasmar, 43, were each charged with one offence under the Terrorism Act 2006 and one offence under the Terrorism Act 2000. Mr Mahmood, 31, was charged with two offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and one offence under the Terrorism Act 2006.

Two of the nine suspects arrested last Wednesday were freed without charge earlier this week. A third was released without charge today and another man remains in custody. He must either be charged, released or police must be granted court permission to continue detaining him by 4am tomorrow.

The West Midlands Assistant Chief Constable, David Shaw, said the inquiry had made "extraordinary progress" since the arrests nine days ago. More than 4,500 exhibits had been seized, including computers and mobile phones, though most had yet to be examined.

Mr Shaw said that despite the demand on police resources of the "very significant operation", the force had continued to provide services to all its neighbourhoods. He also thanked a number of organisations, including MI5 and the Metropolitan police, for help during the investigation.

"This has been more than just a police operation. Birmingham city council has played a part in working with us to help communities in these difficult times," Mr Shaw said. "We have seen real leadership in all sections of the community."

    Man charged with plot to kidnap and kill soldier, G, 9.2.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2009381,00.html

Full CPS statement on terror charges

Friday February 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Here is the statement in full, read out by Sue Hemming, head of the CPS counter-terrorism division.

"We have invited you here today to update you and the public about the current position in relation to individuals who were arrested in Birmingham on January 31.

"The counter-terrorism division was briefed on this operation shortly before the arrests took place. "Another CPS lawyer and I have been working very closely with the Midlands counter-terrorism unit in Birmingham since we were briefed.

"We have been carefully examining and assessing the evidence against each individual in order to come to charging decisions at the earliest possible opportunity. Over the course of last night, my colleague and I made decisions that there was sufficient evidence and we authorised the charge of five individuals. We have been working closely with the DPP throughout this period.

"One has been charged with an offence of engaging in conduct to give effect to his intention to kidnap and kill a member of the armed forces contrary to Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. He has also been charged with another Section 5 offence of engaging in conduct to give effect to his intention to supply equipment to others for use in acts of terrorism.

"Additionally, he faces a third charge of entering into, or becoming concerned in, a funding arrangement whereby money or other property was to be made available to another and he knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect that, it would be or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

"Four other individuals have been charged with a second Section 5 offence and the funding arrangements.

"One of those four individuals has also been charged with failing to disclose information of material assistance in preventing an act of terrorism. That particular charge relates to an act of terrorism in the first Section 5 charge, relating to the kidnap of the soldier.

"One other man has been released from custody last night and another is still being held pending inquiries.

"I would like to conclude by reminding you of the need to take care in reporting the events surrounding these alleged charges. These individuals are only accused of these offences and they have a right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be responsible media reporting which should not prejudice the due process of law."

    Full CPS statement on terror charges, G, 9.2.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2009668,00.html

Islamist activist released on bail

Friday February 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A high-profile Islamist activist charged with encouraging terrorism was today released on conditional bail after appearing in court.

Abu Izzadeen, 32, appeared before Westminster magistrates court this afternoon after being arrested yesterday in an east London street.

Mr Izzadeen, a 32-year-old electrician who was born Trevor Brooks, of Leytonstone, east London, was charged under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

District Judge Daphne Wickham released the father of three on bail on a number of conditions, including that he should not attend or address any organised meeting and that he should surrender his passport.

Mr Izzadeen shot to prominence last September when he barracked the home secretary, John Reid, at a community meeting in east London.

His arrest yesterday was not related to that incident. Instead, it was in connection with a speech he made in Birmingham last year marking the first anniversary of the July 7 attacks in London in which 52 people died and 750 were injured.

Scotland Yard said Mr Izzadeen, who is a convert to Islam, was arrested at 9.30am yesterday close to a tube station on Leyton High Street.

Mr Izzadeen had been arrested "for allegedly encouraging terrorism, as a result of an ongoing inquiry", police said.

    Islamist activist released on bail, G, 9.2.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2009800,00.html

Parents jailed for torturing disabled girl

· 'Miracle' that daughter, 4, survived horrific violence
· Echoes of Climbie case sparks calls for inquiry

Friday February 9, 2007
Guardian
Karen McVeigh

Child protection charities last night called for a public inquiry into how a disabled four-year old was returned to her natural parents who went on to subject her to a sustained campaign of torture that could have killed her. In disturbing echoes of the Victoria Climbie case five years ago, the little girl was the victim of horrific abuse that left her "scarred for life".

The girl's parents, Kimberly Harte, 23, and Samuel Duncan, 27, were jailed for a total of 22 years yesterday by a judge who expressed concern over social workers' handling of the case. One charity said that failure to learn lessons after the Climbie inquiry had led to a "gross failure" to protect her.

Harte and Duncan had poured boiling water on their daughter's hands, tore clumps of hair from her head and kicked her repeatedly in the groin, causing horrendous bruises and liver damage. The girl, who has cerebral palsy, was also forced to sleep naked in a dark toilet and eat her own faeces.

The girl had been removed from her natural parents amid concerns that their relationship was violent. But in January 2005 it was decided that it was safe for her to go back home. The systematic abuse took place within weeks of her return.

Harte was jailed for 11-and-a-half years and her partner for 10-and-a-half years for a string of charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent between February 1 and March 18 2006.

They had earlier admitted child cruelty for neglecting to get medical help for her injuries.

The girl, who can only be identified as Child B, had been described as a "happy, sunny" girl, who loved to sing and dance. But after the abuse she became frightened, withdrawn and unable to walk. She was in almost constant agony until her grandmother began to suspect what was going on and called in social services.

They, together with police, arrived just in time. She had suffered such horrific injuries that she would almost certainly have died without treatment and was in such pain she had to be examined under general anaesthetic. A paediatric registrar described her injuries as the worst abuse he had ever seen.

Mor Dioum, director of the Victoria Climbie Foundation UK, described it as an avoidable tragedy.

He said that despite no fewer than 20 visits to the family home by social services and various health professionals, the child's suffering continued and on five of those occasions, they accepted being told the child was out with her father.

He said it was a miracle she had survived.

Michelle Elliot, of child protection charity Kidscape, said social workers should not have accepted the parents' claims that the child was out. She said: "It is pathetic they accepted such excuses. I know they are in a difficult position but common sense should tell you they were hiding something, which they were."

A 53-page serious case review by Westminster council's Local Safeguarding Children Board has acknowledged failings, including saying that staff "too readily" accepted injuries as accidents. But it concluded that social workers "could not have foreseen the injuries she sustained".

A statement from the Board said: "The independent report concluded that the child's injuries could not have been predicted, nor could they be attributed to individual professional errors or to poor practice.

"Contrary to reports in the media this is not another Victoria Climbie case. Westminster council and partner agencies have been working with the family for a long time."

Mental scars

At Middlesex Guildhall crown court yesterday, Judge Paul Worsley QC, told the couple that their daughter may never recover. He said: "The physical scars may well heal in time, but I doubt the mental scars ever will."

He said Duncan took the lead in much of the violence but told Harte the jury's verdicts made it clear that those trying her had rejected claims that she was under the control of her partner, and she was solely responsible for the scalding incident.

Afterwards the judge added: "I have anxieties about the way this child was returned to her parents against the express wishes of her foster carers. Westminster city council's department of social services has provided me with a serious case review executive summary. It acknowledges failures and makes recommendations. Its reading inspires hope for the future."

Seconds before they were led to the cells, someone in the public gallery screamed out, apparently at Duncan: "You bastard, rot in hell ... What have you done to this poor girl?"

Detective Sergeant Antony Smith from the child abuse investigation unit said: "Before the little girl lived with Harte and Duncan we are told that she was a cheerful happy child who was coping with her disabilities. By the time she was taken to hospital and I met her for the first time she was in obvious pain, withdrawn and frightened."

He added: "She is a wonderful child and is doing far better now, I can only hope, now that they are out of her life, she will have the opportunity to grow both physically and emotionally to her full potential."

    Parents jailed for torturing disabled girl, G, 9.2.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2009298,00.html

Sentences for robbery are at their shortest

January 31, 2007
The Times
Richard Ford

The number of robbbers being jailed immediately has fallen along with the average jail sentence handed out for robbery, according to latest sentencing figures published yesterday.

Robbers were given an average of 35 months in jail in 2005 compared with 38.4 months in the previous years, meaning that the average prison term for the crime is at its shortest for nine years.

The sentencing figures also show that the overall number of people jailed in England and Wales in 2005 reached its lowest level for seven years.

Government attempts to revive the fine as a punishment also suffered a setback, with a 5 per cent fall in the number of people fined in 2005. Overall the number of offenders jailed in 2005 fell from 106,300 to 101,200.

The number of robbers jailed immediately fell by almost 6,000 to 61,700 after reaching a peak of 76,000 in 2002 when Tony Blair led a drive to tackle street crime. Average sentence lengths at the Crown Court fell between 2004 and 2005 for most offences except sex crimes, burglary and theft, and handling stolen goods.

Overall the sentence lengths at all courts fell for violence against the person from 18.8 months to 17.8 months, criminal damage 16.7 months to 15.1 months and drug offences from 37.3 months to 35.8 months.

Average sentence lengths given at crown courts for serious crimes fell from 27 months to 25.9 months and at magistrates’ courts from 3 months to 2.9 months.

    Sentences for robbery are at their shortest, Ts, 31.1.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2575685,00.html

Poor rape conviction rate linked to binge drinking

January 31, 2007
The Times 
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

Victims alleging rape have a one in twenty chance at best of seeing their attacker brought to justice, a record low, according to the findings of a report to ministers published today.


It shows that despite a sustained effort across the criminal justice system to improve the notoriously low conviction rate for rape, it now stands at 5.3 per cent of recorded cases.

The number of convictions has risen slightly to 728 in 2005, but it has failed to keep pace with the soaring rate of reported rapes of more than 40 per cent, the report finds.

The true rate of attrition, the percentage of alleged assaults that fall by the wayside, may be far higher because of the large numbers of rapes (75-90 per cent) that are unreported, or if reported, not recorded by police (up to one third).

The joint report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate says that the huge rise in reported rapes comes chiefly from allegations of “acquaintance” rape, where people know each other, fuelled by a culture of drinking.

In 85 per cent of cases the victim knows his or her attacker; and alcohol and/or drugs is a feature in half the cases.

The report says police and prosecutors need to make better use of evidence of a defendant’s previous “bad character”, which is now admissible.

Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, acknowledged the findings and confirmed that a nationwide network of specialist prosecutors is to take charge of cases from start to trial, as disclosed yesterday in The Times.

The use by defendants of the defence of “consent” needed to be tested more robustly, he added. But he said that the kinds of cases coming forward, where those involved knew each other and had spent an evening drinking together, were hardest to prove. Research had also shown that juries were sceptical in such cases, taking the view that often the victim had “asked for it”.

Case history

75-95 per cent of rape crimes are thought to be never reported

Of those reported, nearly one third of crimes reported are not recorded by police

Of those recorded by police (13,712 in 2005) only one in five reaches trial

Source: “Without consent”, a report by HMCPSI and HMIC.

    Poor rape conviction rate linked to binge drinking, Ts, 31.1.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2576049,00.html

4.30pm update

Former soldier admits family shootings

Monday January 29, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A reclusive former soldier with psychological problems today admitted shooting four members of his family dead.

David Bradley pleaded guilty to four counts of manslaughter with diminished responsibility at Newcastle crown court.

He fired a semi-automatic silenced handgun at his victims' heads from close range, killing his uncle Peter Purcell, a 70-year-old retired builder, his aunt Josie, also 70, and two of their sons, Keith and Glen Purcell, 44 and 41.

During police interviews, 41-year-old Bradley calmly admitted what he had done. "I've always been cold and a loner," he told officers. "I didn't even think about it, I just thought I'd have to kill them."

The court heard that the killings took place at a family home in Benwell, Newcastle upon Tyne, where Bradley had also lived, within the space of several hours last July.

Bradley had been due to stand trial for murder today, but the prosecution dropped those charges, saying it accepted the former Royal Artillery private's manslaughter pleas because of his psychological state.

Psychiatric experts for the prosecution and defence disagreed about the exact nature of his psychiatric problems, but agreed he had been mentally ill at the time of the killings.

Both experts agreed that he was not suffering from a syndrome linked to the first Gulf war in 1991, contrary to reports that appeared in the aftermath of the killings.

Bradley had served in that conflict but was not involved in active service, the court heard. In his eight years before being discharged in 1995, he also served in Bosnia and Northern Ireland.

Toby Hedworth QC, prosecuting, said the defence's psychiatrist expert believed Bradley was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder after serving in Northern Ireland.

The prosecution's expert was not convinced that Bradley had suffered PTSD but did not rule it out, the court heard. The expert believed he may have suffered a psychotic disorder or schizophrenia.

Police described Bradley as a recluse who spent much of his time locked in his bedroom, smoking cannabis. He had secretly stashed an armoury of weapons, there, retreating into a private world as his mental health continued to deteriorate.

He had lived with his aunt and uncle since he was 16, having moved in following a row with his mother. Detectives said the killings happened because Bradley had "flipped", begun smashing up the house, fighting with Keith. The two frequently "rubbed each other up the wrong way", police said.

Detective Superintendent Steve Wade, who led the inquiry, said Bradley had been anxious prior to the killings because his aunt and uncle planned to sell their home, meaning he would have had to find somewhere else to live.

"Bearing in mind that effectively he was a prisoner in his own bedroom, that clearly was preying on his mind," Mr Wade said. "Things were coming to a head."

Bradley shot Peter and Keith first, then waited for Josie and Glen to return to the house. At 5.55am, armed with an arsenal of weapons, he walked to his local police station on Westgate Road to surrender and was arrested on suspicion of murder.

After leaving the army, Bradley saw his doctor, complaining of being tense and wanting to "kill someone". He said he had felt that way for years.

Last May, two months before the killings, a consultant psychiatrist assessed him and prescribed medication to help him cope.

Josie Purcell had tried unsuccessfully to get help from the Ministry of Defence and the NHS for her nephew, and the court heard that Bradley's heavy use of cannabis could have "compounded" his mental state.

After the case, the Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Trust announced that an independent inquiry into the mental health treatment he received had been launched.

The court heard that he would need to be assessed by psychiatrics at Rampton secure hospital, in Nottinghamshire. The recorder of Newcastle, Judge David Hodson, ruled that psychiatric reports should be prepared on Bradley, and that he be remanded in custody.

A hearing will take place on February 26 to update the court on the progress being made in obtaining the reports.

    Former soldier admits family shootings, G, 29.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2001317,00.html

Double standards on a day of judgment


January 27, 2007
The Times

Paedophilia
Spared jail


Keith Morris, 46, a paedophile facing a life sentence after admitting four sex offences, was released on bail by Exeter Crown Court. Judge Graham Cottle said: “There are difficulties remanding people in custody at the moment and the only reason I am having any discussion about this is because of those difficulties.

“If this case had been here last week it would have been over by now and he would be in Exeter prison.”

The decision not to remand Morris in custody alarmed parents of pupils at a primary school that is within 50 yards of his home in Ilsington, near Newton Abbot, Devon. The judge told Morris that he would undoubtedly be given a custodial sentence. In the meantime, he imposed a curfew order confining Morris to his home between 8am and 5pm.


Affray
Sent to prison

Judge Richard Bray jailed Brodie Dickson, 18, and an unnamed teenager for affray at Northampton Crown Court. The judge said: “Overcrowding in prison is not going to prevent me from passing proper sentences. The reason our prisons are full is because judges can no longer pass deterrent sentences.

“What message does it send to criminals when they are told they will only have to serve half the sentence the judge thinks appropriate? Until politicians wake up to this, criminals will continue to reoffend and the prison population to rise.”


Child porn
Spared jail

Dawn Benson, 36, a nurse, pleaded guilty at Newcastle Crown Court to making, possessing and distributing child pornography.

She was sentenced to a three-year community order.

Judge John Evans said: “Where obviously I have regard to recent pronouncements that have come from the Home Office regarding the state of our prisons, the decision I make not to send you to prison, although it takes into account those observations, is not a sentence based on the inadequacy of the prison system.”

Drug possession
Sent to prison

Ashley Barrett, 67, was jailed for 14 months for possessing cannabis with intent to supply.

His counsel asked the judge at Southwark Crown Court to follow Mr Reid’s advice, but David Brock, the Recorder, disagreed, saying: “I have taken into account everything that has been said about your personal circumstances and with regard to your age, but only a custodial sentence is appropriate.”


Wounding
Spared jail

Jane Burrows, 39, admitted wounding her lover by stabbing him in the back.

She was given a 12-month probation community order at the Old Bailey.

Judge Ann Goddard, QC, told Burrows that the attack had warranted an immediate or suspended prison term from the court.

But she added: “Although in my view this offence does pass the custody threshold, there would be no useful purpose in custody.”

Theft
Sent to prison

Pamela Browning, 59, a hospital cleaner who stole £8,000 using a dying patient’s savings book, was jailed for nine months. She had been found guilty at Birmingham Crown Court of obtaining property, and trying to obtain a money transfer, by deception. Judge David Matthews told her: “Dishonesty of this kind, which affects vulnerable patients in hospital, cannot be dealt with in any other way.”


Drug smuggling
Spared jail

Darius Sawka, 33, from Germany, who smuggled 6.65kgs of cannabis into Britain, was given a suspended sentence by Canterbury Crown Court.

Judge Nigel van der Bijl would normally have imposed a two to three-year prison sentence, but said: “The current situation with the prison population is that we are being asked to look at alternatives. Some judges are complaining; I don’t complain, it is a reality.”

Edmund Fowler, for the prosecution, told the court that when Sawka was stopped he claimed that he was living in England and had been back to Germany for five days to care for his mother, who had undergone an eye operation.

He had one single ticket with an incorrect car registration number. He bought two singles, he said, because he did not know how long his mother would be ill. He said he owned the car but did not have the documents. He claimed that the box, complete with ribbons, containing the drugs was a wedding present of a duvet and pillows he had been asked to bring back for friends.

Paul Valder, for the defence, said that Sawka was an educated man earning a living as a translater and had worked for the film industry dubbing films into German. In the early 1990s he lived in England and had a British girlfriend and a daughter and English friends.

He had had lymphatic cancer diagnosed and had undergone chemotherapy and radium therapy, and he had to make a contribution towards treatment in Germany, which was a drain on his resources.

“Around a dinner table with friends, a proposition was made to him by a man called Jan to bring in cannabis for €1,800,” Mr Valder said. “He decided because of his financial straits he couldn’t resist.” Judge van der Bijl said: “The message has to go out that prison sentences will be passed in certain circumstances for drug offences of this nature.”


Drink driving
Spared jail

Kenneth Shute, 61, a consultant at Royal Gwent Hospital, avoided jail despite driving while almost four times over the alcohol limit. He was instead given an 18-month community order and a three-year driving ban by Newport Magistrates’ Court. Michael Weekes, the bench chairman, said the high reading was dangerous but added: “You have shown yourself to be a very caring person and we accept the incident is entirely out of character.”


Child porn
Sent to prison

John Hirst, 64, a charity worker who downloaded child pornography, was jailed by Snaresbrook Crown Court, East London. Judge Timothy King said: “Given the nature of the images, this is a case that crosses the custody threshold.”

    Double standards on a day of judgment, Ts, 27.1.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2569018,00.html

2.45pm

July 21 suspect 'fled through house'

Friday January 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

One of the alleged July 21 terrorists fled from the scene of his failed bomb attack through the house of an elderly woman, telling her, "I won't hurt you - I'm just passing through," a court heard today.

After Hussain Osman's rucksack bomb failed to explode fully on a tube train near Shepherd's Bush station, he escaped between two carriages and walked along an overground section of the Hammersmith and City line "like he was having a stroll in a park", a witness told Woolwich crown court.

Prosecutors say he then climbed over the garden wall of Mellanda and Lola Henry, whose house backs on to the railway track, entered through their dining room window and walked out of their front door.

Ms Henry, a retired nurse, said: "I heard a rushing, like someone running from my dining room area to the hall towards the front door."

The jury was shown photographs of the rear of the house as well as the inside, showing the route Mr Osman is alleged to have taken.

"The man said 'I won't hurt you - I'm just passing through,' or words similar to that. He then opened the front door and went out," Ms Henry added.

He then boarded a bus, the prosecution says, and rode on the upper deck until it reached the end of its route in south London.

Mr Osman, 28, of no fixed abode, is on trial alongside five other men. All deny charges of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life.

The jury heard a series of statements from passengers on the train on which Mr Osman is alleged to have attempted to blow up his bomb on July 21 2005.

As the device went off, witnesses spoke of hearing a bang like a gunshot that splattered a "doughy" substance from the rucksack. The device was one of four that failed to fully explode on three tube trains and a bus in London two weeks after the July 7 bombings, the court heard.

One tube passenger, Eunice Olwa, said she had seen the man squeezing between two carriages and, after attempting to climb on to the roof, jumping down on to the track and walking away.

She remarked on how calm and collected the man had appeared to be. "It was like he was strolling in the park," she said.

Peter Trotter, a London Underground, saw the man walking on the track moments later.

In his statement, he said: "I shouted to the man to get back on the platform. I shouted on two or three occasions. He took no notice. He didn't break into a run."

Ms Henry's husband, Mellanda, who is also retired, said in his statement he had found a wire similar to that used on headphones next to the telephone in the house. He removed it with a dustpan into the garden, where police later found it.

The court was told police had found traces of two footprints in the house, one on top of the dishwasher, the other on the dining room table.

Mr Osman had then been seen walking along Wood Lane, past BBC Television Centre, before catching a bus to south London, the prosecutor, Max Hill, told the jury. Mr Osman also allegedly removed a navy blue top and continued his escape in a white vest.

The jury saw CCTV footage of a 50-minute journey on the number 220 bus from Shepherd's Bush to Wandsworth. The video showed a man wearing a white vest glancing out of the window as the bus made its way through the London traffic. The man stayed on the bus until it reached its final destination.

The other five men are Muktar Said Ibrahim, 28, from Stoke Newington, north London; Ramzi Mohammed, 25, from North Kensington, west London; Yassin Omar, 26, from New Southgate, north London; Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 33, of no fixed address; and Adel Yahya, 24, of High Road, Tottenham, north London.

The trial continues.

    July 21 suspect 'fled through house', G, 26.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1999602,00.html

Mass panic followed 21/7 bomb attempt

January 25, 2007
Times Online
David Byers and agencies

Scenes of mass-panic as hundreds of screaming passengers fled from a suspected London Underground suicide bomber just two weeks after the July 7 attacks have been shown in court for the first time.

CCTV camera footage played at the trial of the alleged July 21 bombers today showed passengers banging on the windows of a Victoria Line train, screaming and shouting as they tried to escape an apparent explosion when their train entered Warren Street tube station.

The panic happened after Yassin Omar, 26, from New Southgate in north London, botched his attempt to cause mass-murder on the northbound stretch of the line when his explosive device failed to detonate, the prosecution claim.

As his detonator went off, the court heard there was a large bang, which caused terror amongst passengers and Mr Omar's rucksack to split open — but the failure of the explosive device to ignite meant there were no casualties.

When the train pulled up at Warren Street frantic passengers spilled from the second carriage of the train. Meanwhile Mr Omar placed his bag on the floor of the train, ran up an escalator and out of the station, barging past passengers as he did so.

He is one of six defendants who are on trial at Woolwich Crown Court charged with conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life, which the prosecution alleges were designed to be perpetrated in a series of coordinated explosions on July 21, 2005.

David Johnson, the manager of the train, told the court he had never seen public panic on such a scale.

The court heard that Mr Johnson was standing on the northbound platform at Warren Street as the train holding Mr Omar pulled in just after 12.30pm.

"I could see that all the passengers were on their feet. They were all trying to get out of the second carriage and were banging on the windows of the train," Mr Johnson told the court.

"A mad rush ensued and there were approximately 300 people running over each other to get out. I can honestly say I have not seen people panicking like this before.

"I was shouting: 'Whats happened, what’s happened?’ But everyone was screaming and shouting."

The court heard that several passengers described the acrid burning smell of what they thought was a bomb, while others spotted Mr Omar with a large hole in the back of his shirt and began to panic.

Max Hill, junior prosecuting counsel, read the statement of Karolin Starzymska, who was in the same carriage as Mr Omar when his bag exploded.

"She heard what sounded like a bomb. She felt lots of sand hit her and smelt burning. She thought it was rubber," he said.

Ms Starzymska saw Mr Omar jump in the air when the explosion went off and then run away from a rucksack oozing with a sticky yellow substance, Mr Hill added: "The man ran towards the carriage in front, he ran in the same direction as 40 people trying to get out of the carriage."

In the moments after the denator went off, passengers described Mr Omar frantically rubbing himself down before joining the rush out of the station. CCTV footage showed him running up two sets of escalators before leaping a luggage barrier.

"I thought he was a fare evader," said Richard Rotimi, a London Underground employee.

The court then heard from Cumhur Mehmet, a chef in the Granby Grill, a cafe often used by taxi drivers. He said a man matching Mr Omar's description burst into his kitchen asking for a glass of water. He took two, using the first to wash his face and drinking the second.

"I asked him who he was and he said there was a bomb scare at Warren Street station," Mr Mehmet told the court. It was then that he noticed a large L-shaped tear in the man's clothing. The alleged bomber then asked for a taxi and left.

Omar’s escape, Warren Street station was evacuated and specialist police officers dressed in chemical and biological protective suits investigated the train, the court heard. A gelatinous mass was found on the floor of the second carriage, with bits of plastic and debris scattered nearby.

A rucksack lay next to it, containing two shirts, a stick of deodorant and aftershave. Officers also found a DVD case for the Hollywood film Meet The Fockers.

Mr Omar along with Ramzi Mohammed, 25, of North Kensington, west London; Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29, of Stoke Newington, north London; Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 33, of no fixed address; Hussain Osman, 28, of no fixed address; and Adel Yahya, 24, of High Road, Tottenham, north London, deny the charges.

The trial continues.

    Mass panic followed 21/7 bomb attempt, Ts, 25.1.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2565308,00.html

3.30pm

July 21 explosive was burning five days later, court told

Wednesday January 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Explosive from the rucksack bomb of one of the alleged July 21 terror plotters was burning through three layers of forensic packaging days later, a court was told today.

Samples of the gel-like mixture of hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour were taken from the Northern Line tube carriage where Ramzi Mohammed allegedly tried to detonate his shrapnel-packed device. The material was stored in special anti-static bags, placed in water and then in plastic boxes.

Claire McGavigan, a senior case officer at the Forensic Explosives Laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent, today told Woolwich crown court the mixture was still burning five days after the alleged attack attempt when she went to inspect it.

"I approached the area where the items from the scene [of the Oval blast] were stored. I noticed that one of the exhibits had quite a lot of condensation on the inside of the packaging and there was smoke circulating around the inside of the bag," she said.

The mixture had seeped out of Mr Mohammed's rucksack after the detonator on his device fired but failed to set off the main charge, it is alleged.

Ms McGavigan told the jury she went to fetch the principal forensic investigator. "We went back into the building, got a hose and sprayed water over the outside of the bag," she added.

"We opened up the bag and hosed the inside ... with water to make absolutely sure there was no reaction. Some of the material had burnt and was black and charred. It burnt through three layers of packaging and left a hole in the packaging."

She said the rucksack that originally contained the charge was "torn and tattered", adding that it looked as though it had been in an explosion.

Ms McGavigan told the court that, wearing a protective suit and two pairs of gloves, she examined the remains of the rucksack bomb while it was still on the floor of the tube carriage on July 21. She said it had a "strong chemical smell, a bit like bleach".

Detective Constable Richard Hall told the court police later recovered Mr Mohammed's black long-sleeved New York top, on which they found his DNA. It had a hole in the lower back.

A battery with red and white wires attached to a snap connector was also found and had 25-year-old Mr Mohammed's fingerprints on it, he said.

Mr Mohammed, of North Kensington, west London, is one of six men accused of hatching an extremist Islamist plot to carry out a series of suicide bombings on London's public transport system on July 21 2005, two weeks after the July 7 bombings killed dozens in the capital.

The other defendants are Muktar Said Ibrahim, 28, of Stoke Newington, north London; Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 33, of no fixed address; 26-year-old Yassin Omar, from New Southgate, north London; Hussain Osman, 28, of no fixed address; and 24-year-old Adel Yahya, of High Road, Tottenham, north London.

They all deny charges of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life. The trial continues.

    July 21 explosive was burning five days later, court told, G, 24.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1997687,00.html

3pm

Boy 'killed by being forced to eat salt'

Friday January 19, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

A married couple killed a young boy they planned to adopt by forcing him to eat a "significant" amount of salt, a court was told today.

Ian Gay, 39, and 40-year-old Angela Gay, of Hayley Green, Halesowen, Birmingham, appeared at Nottingham crown court charged with one count of manslaughter and one of cruelty in connection with the death of three-year-old Christian Blewitt.

Christian was taken to hospital after collapsing at the Gays' home on December 8 2002. He died at Birmingham Children's Hospital four days later.

Opening the prosecution case, William Davis QC said tests revealed abnormal levels of sodium in the boy's bloodstream, and showed he had suffered a brain haemorrhage.

"Our case in a nutshell is that the two of them [Mr and Mrs Gay] forced Christian to consume salt, probably as some kind of punishment," he said.

"Also, that they manhandled him in a wholly inappropriate way for a three-year-old child. They shook him or banged his head against a mattress or something like that."

Mr Davis said that although the prosecution did not believe the Gays intended to kill or seriously harm the three-year-old, any reasonable person would have realised their actions would harm him.

Earlier, the trial judge, Mr Justice Pitchford, told the jury this was the second time Mr and Mrs Gay had been tried in relation to Christian's death.

"At the first trial, the jury found Mr and Mrs Gay not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter," he said. "Mr and Mrs Gay appealed against their convictions on the grounds of fresh evidence.

"The court of appeal allowed their appeal and ordered a retrial on the charges of manslaughter and cruelty, which is how we come to be here today."

The judge reminded the jury that this is a fresh trial, and told them they should not research the case themselves.

    Boy 'killed by being forced to eat salt' , G, 19.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1994524,00.html

5.30pm update

July 21 jurors see 'detonations' on CCTV

Tuesday January 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Agencies

A jury hearing the case of six men accused of plotting suicide bombings on London's public transport network today saw footage of two of them allegedly detonating their devices.

One of the men was on a busy tube carriage and the other on a bus on July 21 2005.

One CCTV film showed 25-year-old Ramzi Mohammed turning his back on a mother and her child before setting off what the prosecution alleges was a bomb inside his rucksack.

Jurors later saw footage of Muktar Said Ibrahim, 28, finding a seat on the top deck of a bus travelling through east London before allegedly igniting his device.

On the second day of the trial, Woolwich crown court heard that the pair and two of the other defendants had tried to explode bombs in a coordinated attack on three tube trains and a bus, but the home-made devices failed to go off properly.

Only the bombs' detonators, not the main charges, ignited, the prosecution counsel, Nigel Sweeney, said.

The CCTV footage of Mr Mohammed showed passengers on a Northern line train travelling between Stockwell and Oval stations, in south London, fleeing after the small blast, in which nobody was injured.

Angus Campbell, a fireman, stayed to remonstrate with the alleged attacker. At one point, Mr Mohammed dropped the rucksack to the ground and pointed at it repeatedly.

Mr Sweeney said Mr Mohammed had been trying to explain that some bread, rather than a bomb, had caused the blast. "He placed the rucksack on the floor of the carriage, no doubt the best he could do, being surprised to find himself alive," he said.

When the train pulled into Oval station and the doors opened, Mr Mohammed ran on to the platform with members of the public in pursuit.

CCTV footage shows him sprinting up a down escalator, using his ticket to get through the gates and then running out of the station. The jury was told he had then run into a nearby housing estate, where he removed a distinctive top with the words "New York" on it.

Later, Mr Sweeney said Mr Mohammed had left a suicide note in which he promised to meet his two sons "in paradise".

The jury was shown two versions of the letter, one of which was found ripped into pieces in a bin at a relative's home, Mr Sweeney said. The court was told that Mr Mohammed wrote: "I beg Allah to accept this action from me ... he promises martyrdom to whom he wishes."

Also today, jurors saw CCTV film of Mr Ibrahim sitting on his own at the back of the top deck of the number 26 bus prior to attempting to detonate his bomb, Mr Sweeney said. The partial explosion made passengers flee the bus, Mr Ibrahim joining them.

The prosecution barrister also described the moments when the other two alleged bombers had tried to set off their devices. In these cases, too, only the detonators had ignited, he said.

He told the jury that Yassin Omar, 26, had detonated his bomb on a Victoria line train near Warren Street, central London, shouting out in pain and perhaps being thrown into the air by the partial blast.

Mr Omar then staggered from the train, exited the station and ran northwards, pleading in vain for help from several people including two women in traditional Muslim dress, one of whom he urged to take him home, the barrister said.

Hussain Osman, 28, had been carrying identifying items in his rucksack when he set off on July 21, including a health club card containing his address and photograph, Mr Sweeney said.

"If you are expecting to die, it does not matter at all if you have in your rucksack pictures of yourself," he added.

Mr Osman had set off his device on a Hammersmith and City line train between Latimer Road and Shepherd's Bush, in west London, Mr Sweeney told the jurors. Some passengers recalled him being thrown off his feet by the blast, he said.

Mr Osman had escaped from the train, which was on an above-ground section of track, and fled over a trackside wall, the lawyer added.

Mr Mohammed, Mr Ibrahim, Mr Omar and Mr Osman, along with 33-year-old Manfo Kwaku Asiedu and Adel Yahya, 24, deny charges of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life between January and July 2005.

At the start of the day's proceedings, the jury was told evidence clearly linked the men with rucksack-carried bombs recovered after their alleged plot failed.

There was "no doubt" that a home-made high explosive used as the detonator for the devices had been manufactured at Mr Omar's flat in New Southgate, north London, Mr Sweeney said.

Ingredients to make triacetone triperoxide (TATP), including liquid hydrogen peroxide, acetone and acid, had been found at the flat in Curtis House, he said. Receipts for purchases and traces of the explosives had been found in bins and other areas of the flat.

"There is no doubt that TATP has been made at 58 Curtis House - lists, receipts, ingredients and traces," Mr Sweeney told the court.

The main explosive charges were made from liquid hydrogen peroxide, chapati flour, batteries and torch bulbs, all of which had been brought to the "bomb factory" at Curtis House, he added.

    July 21 jurors see 'detonations' on CCTV, G, 16.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1991641,00.html

Failure of devices foiled tube attacks, court told

Men fled after home-made explosives in rucksacks did not detonate, says QC

Tuesday January 16, 2007
Guardian
Sandra Laville

The would-be suicide bombers gathered the night before July 21 in a flat in north Kensington in London; everything was ready for an attack that had been planned for weeks and was to be carried out with explosive devices cooked up on a kitchen stove, mixing high-strength hair bleach, nail varnish remover, acid, lightbulbs, batteries and chapati flour, the jury at Woolwich crown court heard.

When the five men walked out of 14 Dalgarno Gardens the next day, Ramzi Mohammed left the remnants of a draft suicide note to his two children; evidence found later suggested a suicide video had been also filmed, the jury heard.

The suspects had allegedly chosen to detonate their bombs on the London transport system at lunchtime, avoiding the extra rush-hour security measures put in place since the July 7 bombings. In simultaneous attacks, they touched the wires of their home-made bombs to battery connectors in their rucksacks at around 12.30pm, the jury was told. But the devices failed.

Nigel Sweeney, QC, prosecuting, said: "Whether it was problems with the manufacture at Curtis House [in New Southgate in north London], with decomposition of the mixtures, with the hot weather on July 21 affecting the chemicals, the failure of these bombs to explode owed nothing to the intentions of these defendants - it was simply the good fortune of the travelling public that day that they were spared."

The six men, all of whom originate from Africa, had been drawing up their plans for a considerable time, the court heard. In the end one of them, Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, lost his nerve and dumped his bomb, and Adel Yayha left the country before the attack, the prosecutor said.

Fourteen months earlier five of them - Muktar Said Ibrahim, Hussein Osman, Yassin Hassan Omar, Mr Mohammed and Mr Yahya - had been on a camping trip to the Lake District, the jury heard. Similar trips had allegedly been made, to train for jihad, to Scotland in 2004.

The court was told that one of the group, Mr Ibrahim, had travelled to Pakistan between December 2004 and March 2005. He was stopped by police at Heathrow and interviewed as he tried to board the plane for Pakistan. In his luggage he had a sleeping bag and a first aid kit and he was carrying £3,000 in cash.

An associate travelling with him was carrying a manual describing how to deal with ballistics wounds and a military first aid kit. In the end the police let him go, and Mr Ibrahim took a plane the next day to Pakistan, the prosecution claims, to "take part in jihad or to train for it".

It was on his return in March 2005 that preparations for the bombings began in earnest, the jury heard. From his late teens, Mr Ibrahim, who the prosecution says had military training in Sudan in 2003, had attended Finsbury Park mosque to listen to the radical cleric Abu Hamza along with Mr Omar. "One witness will say Ibrahim appeared to be in charge of Omar and of the others," said Mr Sweeney.

In April 2005, the men allegedly bought ingredients for six bombs and started to turn Mr Omar's flat at 58 Curtis House, New Southgate, into a bomb factory. Mr Sweeney said the main explosive charge was made of hydrogen peroxide, or hair bleach, with chapati flour. The men allegedly bought 443 litres of hydrogen peroxide from three hairdresser suppliers - Sally's in Finchley, Pak in Finsbury Park and Hair Way in Tottenham - for £550. To create the detonators they are said to have bought lightbulbs and batteries from Maplin's in Finchley.

In the kitchen of Mr Omar's flat in Curtis House, the men reduced the hydrogen peroxide to a higher strength by boiling it, the court heard. They allegedly created the detonators out of high-strength hydrogen peroxide mixed with acetone, - nail varnish remover - and acid.

The detonators were placed in tubes of cardboard, the court heard. Mr Sweeney said the bulb was put in one end, and wires ran from the bulb to a battery connector set up to create a charge and cause the detonator to explode; each device was packed inside a plastic tub.

The men taped screws, nuts and washers to the containers as home-made shrapnel in order to cause more serious injuries and more fatalities, the jury was told. As he showed a replica of the bomb to the jury, Mr Sweeney said there was no doubt that it was functional.

He showed videos of three tests of similar bombs at the forensic explosives laboratory in Kent. The slow motion footage seen by jurors showed a huge blast, a mushroom cloud and shock waves from the centre of the explosion.

With their bombs packed into specially altered rucksacks, the five, without Mr Yayha, left the Dalgarno Gardens flat mid-morning on July 21, the court heard. Mr Ibrahim, Mr Omar and Mr Mohammed drove to Stockwell and Mr Osman walked to Westbourne Park , Mr Sweeney said.

On a Northern line tube just before Oval, Mr Mohammed allegedly tried to detonate his bomb. "In the tunnel en route Mohammed turned so that his rucksack was facing a mother with her child in a pushchair, and then detonated, causing panic, fear and confusion," Mr Sweeney said.

At Shepherd's Bush, Mr Osman's device also failed, as did those of Mr Ibrahim on the number 26 bus and Mr Omar at Warren Street, the court heard. When the devices failed the men are said to have fled, only to be caught on CCTV.

Mr Osman jumped through the tube window and on to the track, before climbing down into the garden of a house, where he dumped his materials, the court heard. He allegedly climbed through the window, and left via the front door, making his way to Brighton and then on to Rome, where he was arrested later.

Mr Sweeney said Mr Omar had disguised himself as a Muslim woman in a burka and taken a coach to Birmingham the following day. He was arrested standing fully clothed in the bath with a rucksack on his back.

Mr Ibrahim and Mr Mohammed hid at the flat in Dalgarno Gardens, where they were arrested eight days later. Mr Asiedu, who allegedly dumped his bomb in Little Wormwood Scrubs, went to the police to explain his role, but lied, according to the prosecution.

Mr Sweeney said there was evidence the men held extremist views. When police raided Curtis House and Mr Osman's home in Stockwell they found videos and CDs of suicide bombings, beheadings of western hostages and of the 9/11 attack.

"[These] provide powerful evidence for the contention that these defendants were intending to kill in order to further their aims," Mr Sweeney said.

The case continues.

    Failure of devices foiled tube attacks, court told, G, 16.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1991469,00.html

5pm update

July 21 six 'planned suicide bombings'

Monday January 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Agencies

Six men planned to carry out a series of "murderous suicide bombings" on London's public transport system on July 21 2005, using rucksack-carried bombs designed to cause maximum injuries, a court was told today.

Opening the prosecution case at the start of a trial scheduled to last up to four months, Nigel Sweeney QC said the men were engaged in an "extremist Muslim plot" which would have seen devices explode a fortnight after 52 people were killed by blasts on three tube trains and a bus around London.

"This case is concerned with an extremist Muslim plot, the ultimate objective of which was to carry out a number of murderous suicide bombings on the public transport system in London," he told the jury of nine women and five men at Woolwich crown court in east London. "The day eventually chosen was Thursday July 21 2005, just 14 days after the carnage of July 7."

The six are all charged with conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life.

Muktar Said Ibrahim, 28, from Stoke Newington, north London; Ramzi Mohammed, 25, from North Kensington, west London; Yassin Omar, 26, from New Southgate, north London; Hussain Osman, 28, of no fixed address; Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 33, of no fixed address; and Adel Yahya, 24, of High Road, Tottenham, deny the charges.

The jury was told that Mr Ibrahim, Mr Asiedu, Mr Osman, Mr Omar and Mr Mohammed were meant to have taken the role of "would-be suicide bombers". However, Mr Asiedu, "lost his nerve at the last moment" and dumped his device.

The sixth defendant, Mr Yahya, was "involved, at the least of it, taking part in some of the essential preparation done in furtherance of the conspiracy", even though he left Britain six weeks before July 21, Mr Sweeney said.

All the men were militant Islamists, the prosecution lawyer said. Three had attended sermons by the radical cleric Abu Hamza at Finsbury Park mosque, in north London, while one had received military training in Sudan, he alleged.

The defendants "in various combinations" were all known to each other by the summer of 2005, he said, while Mr Omar's one-bedroom flat in New Southgate was the conspirators' bomb factory, "where the great majority, if not all, of the work required to make those bombs was carried out".

Completed bombs were placed in large plastic containers with "a large quantity of screws, tacks, washers, or nuts" taped around them. "The purpose of shrapnel is, of course, to increase damage when the bomb explodes and thus to maximise the possibility of injuries - fatal or otherwise - to those who are in the vicinity," Mr Sweeney said.

He showed a replica bomb to the jury, saying that while six had been made, only five were intended to be used on July 21, carried in rucksacks.

The barrister said there was "no doubt" that the design for the devices was "functional", saying scientists from the forensic explosives laboratory in Kent had conducted a number of tests.

The would-be bombers met at Mr Mohammed's flat in north Kensington, west London, the night before the alleged attack, from where they set off the following day, Mr Sweeney said.

Mr Ibrahim, Mr Omar and Mr Mohammed made their way south of the river Thamas, while Mr Osman made his way on foot north of the river.

"The period between 12.30pm and just after 1pm that Thursday afternoon, all four fired their bombs - three on Tube trains and one later on a bus," the barrister said, explaining that "in each case" the detonator fired but the main charge did not explode.

Mr Sweeney said evidence showed that Mr Mohammed had tried to explode his device on a tube carriage near Oval station, in south London; Mr Omar had done the same close to Warren Street, in the centre, and Mr Osman near Shepherd's Bush in the west. Mr Ibrahim had been on the top deck of a bus in Shoreditch, in east London, Mr Sweeney said.

It was not known whether the bombs had failed because of a manufacturing fault, the mixture of chemicals used or the hot weather on that day, Mr Sweeney said, arguing that it was "simply the good fortune of the travelling public that day that they were spared".

The jury was told that Mr Omar was seen on CCTV footage the next day at coach stations in north London and Birmingham coach station disguised as a woman wearing a burka. He was arrested at a house in Birmingham on July 27, standing in a bath fully clothed with a rucksack on his back, Mr Sweeney said

Mr Muktar, Mr Ibrahim and Mr Mohammed were arrested at the flat in north Kensington two days after the alleged attack. Mr Osman travelled to Rome, where he was arrested on July 29.

Mr Sweeney told the court that, following his arrest, Mr Osman claimed to police that the plot was not a serious attempt to kill commuters but "a deliberate hoax in order to make a political point".

"The prosecution case is that this was no hoax," the lawyer said. "The failure of those bombs to explode owed nothing to the intention of these defendants, rather it was simply the good fortune of the travelling public that day that they were spared."

Mr Asiedu was supposed to be the fifth bomber but "lost his nerve" and dumped his bomb in a wooded area in Little Wormwood Scrubs, north-west London, where it was found two days later, the jury was told.

Afterwards, he tried to convey the impression of a man "carrying on his life as normal", Mr Sweeney said.

On July 26 he went to the police but "not to tell the truth", he alleged.

Instead, during the course of interviews lasting a number of days, Asiedu "lied on an epic scale" to keep up the pretence that he only happened to know two of the defendants, Mr Sweeney told the jury.

Mr Sweeney said the evidence also showed that a number of the defendants were connected with the alleged "bomb factory" between April and July 2005.

"It is our case that the events with which this case is concerned are plainly not some hastily arranged copycat, albeit, as we shall see, like 7/7, one of the bombs was deployed on a bus somewhat after the others," Mr Sweeney said.

The court was told that five of the six had been under surveillance by police during a camping trip they made to the Lake District almost 15 months before their alleged bombing attempt. Their photographs were taken by police as they lined up with others on the trip, on a bank holiday weekend in early May 2004, apparently to take part in prayer.

No one was killed in the alleged July 21 attempted bombings.

    July 21 six 'planned suicide bombings', G, 15.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1990934,00.html

4.15pm

July 21: the prosecution case

Monday January 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Agencies

Prosecutors today gave a jury hearing the cases of six men accused of plotting to detonate bombs on London's public transport system on July 21 2005 a detailed explanation of the alleged movements of five of the men that day.

Prosecution barrister Nigel Sweeney said five of the six intended to be suicide bombers. The sixth, Adel Yahya, was involved in planning for the operation even though he left Britain six weeks before July 21, Mr Sweeney said.

Ramzi Mohammed, 25

There was "no doubt" that Mr Mohammed attempted to detonate his rucksack-carried device near Oval tube station, south London, Mr Sweeney told Woolwich crown court.

Mr Mohammed, who was wearing a top bearing the words New York - something the barrister said was "no doubt connected with the events of 9/11" - took the Northern line from nearby Stockwell and waited until the train was between that station and Oval.

"In the tunnel, Mohammed turned so that his rucksack was facing a mother with a pushchair and then detonated, causing panic, fear and confusion even though the main charge had failed to go off," Mr Sweeney said.

He said evidence linking Mr Mohammed with the scene was strong, including CCTV footage, fingerprints in the relevant train carriage and DNA on a shirt stuffed into the rucksack containing the bomb.

Yassin Omar, 26

Mr Sweeney said there was additionally "no doubt" that Mr Omar had attempted to detonate his bomb near Warren Street station, central London.

Mr Omar - also travelling from Stockwell - boarded a Victoria line tube travelling north, the court was told. He tried to set off his device as the train approached Warren Street, also without success.

Mr Sweeney said CCTV footage showed Mr Omar going into Stockwell station, while on the train and while escaping later. His DNA was allegedly found on the rucksack containing the alleged bomb, and he was identified by witnesses.

Hussain Osman, 28

Mr Osman is alleged to have boarded a Hammersmith and City line train at Westbourne Park station, west London, and tried to detonate his bomb between Latimer Road and Shepherd's Bush stations, Mr Sweeney said.

CCTV footage from the day of the alleged attacks showed him at Westbourne Park, escaping the train at Shepherd's Bush and on a bus heading towards Wandsworth, south-west London.

Muktar Said Ibrahim, 28

According to the prosecution, Mr Ibrahim travelled from Stockwell tube station to Bank station, in the City, on the Northern line. He then got out and caught a number 26 bus going east, sitting on the top deck.

"As the bus reached the junction of Shoreditch High Street and Hackney Road, at shortly after 1pm, he detonated his bomb," Mr Sweeney told the court. "Again, only the detonator fired."

The barrister said there was CCTV footage of Mr Ibrahim at the various stations, and that his DNA had been found on the bomb's battery and on a shirt near the bomb on the bus.

Manfo Asiedu, 33

Mr Sweeney said Mr Asiedu "lost his nerve at the last moment" and dumped his bomb in a wooded area in Little Wormwood Scrubs, north-west London, where it was found two days later.

    July 21: the prosecution case, G, 15.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1991017,00.html

4.15pm

July 21: the prosecution case

Monday January 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Agencies

Prosecutors today gave a jury hearing the cases of six men accused of plotting to detonate bombs on London's public transport system on July 21 2005 a detailed explanation of the alleged movements of five of the men that day.

Prosecution barrister Nigel Sweeney said five of the six intended to be suicide bombers. The sixth, Adel Yahya, was involved in planning for the operation even though he left Britain six weeks before July 21, Mr Sweeney said.

Ramzi Mohammed, 25

There was "no doubt" that Mr Mohammed attempted to detonate his rucksack-carried device near Oval tube station, south London, Mr Sweeney told Woolwich crown court.

Mr Mohammed, who was wearing a top bearing the words New York - something the barrister said was "no doubt connected with the events of 9/11" - took the Northern line from nearby Stockwell and waited until the train was between that station and Oval.

"In the tunnel, Mohammed turned so that his rucksack was facing a mother with a pushchair and then detonated, causing panic, fear and confusion even though the main charge had failed to go off," Mr Sweeney said.

He said evidence linking Mr Mohammed with the scene was strong, including CCTV footage, fingerprints in the relevant train carriage and DNA on a shirt stuffed into the rucksack containing the bomb.

Yassin Omar, 26

Mr Sweeney said there was additionally "no doubt" that Mr Omar had attempted to detonate his bomb near Warren Street station, central London.

Mr Omar - also travelling from Stockwell - boarded a Victoria line tube travelling north, the court was told. He tried to set off his device as the train approached Warren Street, also without success.

Mr Sweeney said CCTV footage showed Mr Omar going into Stockwell station, while on the train and while escaping later. His DNA was allegedly found on the rucksack containing the alleged bomb, and he was identified by witnesses.

Hussain Osman, 28

Mr Osman is alleged to have boarded a Hammersmith and City line train at Westbourne Park station, west London, and tried to detonate his bomb between Latimer Road and Shepherd's Bush stations, Mr Sweeney said.

CCTV footage from the day of the alleged attacks showed him at Westbourne Park, escaping the train at Shepherd's Bush and on a bus heading towards Wandsworth, south-west London.

Muktar Said Ibrahim, 28

According to the prosecution, Mr Ibrahim travelled from Stockwell tube station to Bank station, in the City, on the Northern line. He then got out and caught a number 26 bus going east, sitting on the top deck.

"As the bus reached the junction of Shoreditch High Street and Hackney Road, at shortly after 1pm, he detonated his bomb," Mr Sweeney told the court. "Again, only the detonator fired."

The barrister said there was CCTV footage of Mr Ibrahim at the various stations, and that his DNA had been found on the bomb's battery and on a shirt near the bomb on the bus.

Manfo Asiedu, 33

Mr Sweeney said Mr Asiedu "lost his nerve at the last moment" and dumped his bomb in a wooded area in Little Wormwood Scrubs, north-west London, where it was found two days later.

    July 21: the prosecution case, G, 15.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1991017,00.html

12.45pm

Judges quash murder conviction after 14 years

Friday January 12, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A man jailed for life in 1993 for the gangster-style killing of a retired science teacher had his conviction quashed today by the court of appeal.

The appeal judges ruled that "criticisms and failures" brought to their attention in the trial of Andrew Adams, now 36, had the cumulative effect of rendering the verdict unsafe.

Jurors at the original trial had taken the rare move in December of giving testimony to the appeal that their decision was affected by "prejudice and bias" voiced by their colleagues outside the jury room.

A female juror had remarked on several occasions during the trial that she knew "these lads are guilty", the appeal court heard.

But the judges rejected the allegations of jury bias, saying instead that it was deficiencies in the pre-trial preparation that led to the conviction being quashed.

Lord Justice Gage said a failure to use evidence relating to three topics, which was available to the defence before trial, had demonstrated that "for whatever reason, the legal advisers at trial had failed in those respects in their pre-trial preparations".

Jack Royal, a 58-year-old grandfather, was shot dead on his doorstep in Gateshead in 1990 - a killing said to have been in revenge for his fatal stabbing three years earlier of his son's former business partner, in self-defence.

After the jury found him guilty of Mr Royal's killing, the trial judge told Mr Adams, then 23: "You have been convicted of a brutal murder which was in every sense akin to an execution." His co-defendant was acquitted.

The appeal judges today concluded: "We are not to be taken as finding that if there had been no such failures the appellant would inevitably have been acquitted. We are however satisfied for the reasons given that the verdict is unsafe."

Speaking after hearing of the findings, Mr Adams said: "I am overwhelmed with all that has happened.

"A few minutes ago I was a prisoner serving a life sentence for a crime I did not commit. I am now a free man."

He said he would now return to Newcastle to rebuild his life. "During the past 14 years my mum has died, my friends have got married, settled down and had children, whilst I have been in prison."

Ben Rose, his solicitor, added: "This is a great day, a sad day and a shameful day ... shameful day because the material which has led the court of appeal to quash Mr Adams's conviction was there for his original lawyers to examine - something they failed to do." The Crown later said it would not be seeking a retrial.

    Judges quash murder conviction after 14 years, G, 12.1.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1989111,00.html

Top judges revolt over reform of sentencing

14 of ministers’ 16 proposals rejected

Anger at 'change for the sake of change'

January 08, 2007
The Times
Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

Senior judges are on a collision course with the Home Secretary over radical plans to overhaul sentencing.


In a sweeping rejection of 14 of the 16 proposals made by John Reid and the Lord Chancellor last year, they say that no thought is being given to the longer-term consequences of the planned changes, and criticise the Government’s “change for the sake of change” approach to criminal justice.

The judges say that plans to limit the use of community punishments in favour of fines appear to be a kneejerk reaction, with no thought to longer-term consequences.

In their response to the proposals, seen by The Times, they also express fears that extending the range of offences that can be dealt with by fixed-penalty notices would create an impression among the public that such crimes were not being taken seriously. Many proposals in the consultation paper, Making Sentencing Clearer, appear to make sentencing more complex, they say.

The judges’ strong opposition means that the more controversial ideas are unlikely to go ahead. The Home Secretary and Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC, are likely instead to press judges to be much clearer about what a sentence means when punishing an offender.

The response of The Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Court Judges exposes the outrage of the judiciary at their treatment by ministers in the soft-sentence row over the five-year minimum jail term given to Craig Sweeney, a paedophile.

The row prompted the consultation paper in November, in which Mr Reid and colleagues outlined proposals to simplify sentencing and give judges more powers to deal with dangerous offenders. But the judges have responded by dismissing almost all the proposals and in their paper deliver a broadside against the Home Office’s and Department for Constitutional Affairs’ approach to policymaking. “There is the perception of ‘change for the sake of change’ in much current policy. This often appears to be kneejerk reaction to particular situations. It gives the impression of crisis management. Frequently, no thought is given to the longer-term consequences of the proposals,” the response by circuit judges said.

The paper said that a plan to force courts to use fines by limiting offences for which community punishment could be given sent the wrong signal to the public. It said: “Less serious offending is usually the breeding ground for more serious offending.” The document added: “To create the impression such offending is not to be treated as significant is to encourage the belief that crime may not result in retribution, hastening and substantially increasing the risk of more serious offending taking place.”

In a swipe at government plans for a huge extension of fixed-penalty fines, the paper said that the view appeared to be that some criminal activity did not merit proper process or consequence.

The judges also gave warning of increasing alcohol-fuelled violence and a rise in the seriousness of some crime being committed.” We have been expressing concerns about that for some time,” they say. The paper said there was no “quick fix” to the level of offending and that many of the Government’s proposals either did not address the root causes or “represent nothing more than a thumb in the dyke”.

The paper from the council, which represents 600 judges who work in the Crown Courts, also attacked ministers who criticised the sentence given to Sweeney, even though the judge was following the law. It said the fact that two senior ministers appeared to endorse misreporting of the sentence was to be regretted.

“Clarity in sentencing cannot be guaranteed so long as those who should understand and explain the situation choose not to do so,” the judge said.

Mr Reid described the sentence given to Sweeney as “unduly lenient”, and Vera Baird, a junior Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, was forced to withdraw remarks in which she criticised the trial judge.

    Top judges revolt over reform of sentencing, Ts, 8.1.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2536709,00.html

Judicial discretion comes up against political judgment

January 08, 2007
The Times
Richard Ford: Analysis

The overwhelming thumbs-down by senior judges in England and Wales to government proposals aimed at changing a sentencing regime introduced less than two years ago is hardly a surprise. Even as the plans were published, Whitehall sources suggested that few would ever be implemented.

Even within the Home Office there were doubts about some of the more contentious ideas in the Making Sentencing Clearer consulation document.

Far from making sentencing clearer, many of those who examined the proposals believed that they would cause more confusion.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC, a Minister of State in the department, was said to be unhappy about a proposal to give judges the power to add extra years to the sentence of a dangerous offender on the basis of “public confidence issues”.

Disagreements between the judiciary and politicans tend to be kept private, but in recent years they have become more public. Much of the argument has focused on judicial discretion as politicans introduced sentencing changes aimed at curbing judicial powers.

Yet as far back as 1880 the Lord Chancellor protested at a proposed Royal Commission intended to bring about uniform sentencing through legislation.

In the early part of the 19th century maximum and minimum sentences restricted judicial discretion, though by the last century the judges had much greater leeway in what jail term to impose.

During the past 15 years politicans have acted to restrict discretion. Michael Howard’s plans for automatic minimum terms for second-time drug dealers and third-time burglars when he was Home Secretary provoked uproar. Lord Taylor of Gosforth, who was then Lord Chief Justice, denounced the plans as ill-conceived and opposition in the Lords forced Mr Howard to make concessions. Judges were allowed to disregard an automatic mimimum term if it was “unjust in all the circumstances”.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 also caused controversy as David Blunkett curbed the judges’ powers on minimum terms for murderers. The Act also created a Sentencing Guidelines Council, which issues guidance. A judge can move away from its guidelines but must give reasons for doing so.

Proposals and reponse

1. What more could be done to promote use of community sentences instead of short periods in jail? Judges do not impose custodial sentences unless there is no appropriate alternative disposal

2. Does the way sentences are explained in court need to change to make them more understandable to the public? We do not believe that lengthy explanation will improve matters

3. Should sentence be explained as a part to be served in prison and a part as supervision in the community? Not satisfied that this will improve clarity

4. Would it help if judge expressed indeterminate sentence in terms of from six years to life? No

5. Should judge give recommendation in indeterminate cases of a minimum period to be served for public protection in addition to the minimum term for punishment? No

6. Would a judge have sufficient information to reach this decision (above)? No

7. Should judge be able to disapply duty to release offender given fixed-term jail term at half way stage where test of exceptionally high seriousness is met? No

8. Should prison authorities or police be able to apply for prisoner serving a fixed-term sentence to stay in jail longer on basis of behaviour in jail? No

9. Should probation officer get power to vary punishment given an offenders on basis of behaviour without going back to court? No

10. Do you agree with possible arrangements for such a scheme? No comment

11. Should options to reduce burden on probation be red- uced by limiting requests for reports and other measures. Yes

12. Should authorities reach a deal with courts on requests for reports and use of community orders? No

13. Will sentencers be more willing to use fines if more support is available for offenders? No

14. Do you think a community punishment should be unavailable for all non-imprisonable offences or just some non- imprisonable offences? No

15. Should information on unit costs of remand and sentencing disposals be published? Yes

16. Would you like comparative information for each region to be published on crime patterns and reconvictions rates? No. Information already available

Judicial discretion comes up against political judgment, Ts, 8.1.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2536603,00.html