History > 2007 > UK > Justice (II)

2.30pm

Ex-BNP candidate

jailed for stockpiling explosives

Tuesday July 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Duncan Campbell

A former British National party candidate who stockpiled explosive chemicals and ball bearings in anticipation of a future civil war was today jailed for two and a half years.

As he has already spent nearly a year in custody, however, he is likely to be released within six months.

Robert Cottage, aged 49, from Colne, Lancashire, had pleaded guilty to possession of the chemicals. He was acquitted after two trials on charges of conspiracy to cause explosions.

Sentencing Cottage at Manchester's crown square court, Mrs Justice Swift said he continued to hold views "that veer towards the apocalyptic". She added that his actions had been "criminal and potentially dangerous" but said there was a low risk of his committing further offences.

"It is important to understand that Cottage's intention was that if he ever had to use the thunder flashes, it was only for the purpose of deterrence," Mrs Justice Swift said.

Cottage had believed that, as he saw it, "the evils of uncontrolled immigration" would lead to civil war, which would be imminent and inevitable, she said.

"The pre-sentence report says Cottage continues to hold views that veer towards the apocalyptic. The risk of further offending of the same type is low but it cannot be ruled out."

The judge said she accepted that Cottage's intention had been to hold on to the chemicals, which included ammonia, hydrogen peroxide and hydrochloric acid, until the outbreak of civil disturbance.

But she warned: "In letting off any such thunder flash, mistakenly believing you were under threat, you may have caused injury to some innocent person."

Alistair Webster QC, Cottage's counsel, told the court his client accepted that he had bought the potassium nitrate and sulphur with the intention of manufacturing gunpowder, but said this would have been used only to create thunder flash-style bangers to scare off intruders.;

Cottage, who stood three times unsuccessfully for the BNP in local council elections, was arrested last September after police found the stockpile of chemicals at his home in Talbot Street, Colne.

The police took action after Cottage's wife told a social worker of her concerns about the items he was storing and, and about her husband's stated belief that immigration was out of control.

Police also found ball bearings and a document about bomb-making from the do-it-yourself explosives-making manual The Anarchist Cookbook on his computer. He also had air pistols, crossbows and a stockpile of food.

"I believe it is everyone's God-given right to defend themselves and their families if they are attacked," Cottage told the court during his trial. "The breakdown of the financial system will inevitably put an unbearable strain on the social structures of this country."

Cottage claimed in court that, with the armed forces in the Middle East and the police insufficiently trained, the authorities would be unable to offer people protection.

He added that immigration was a luxury that Britain could not afford, but that he drove a bus for children with disabilities and had a good relationship with the Asian children among them.

A second man, David Jackson, 62, a dentist, was also charged with conspiracy to cause explosions but was cleared after the jury twice failed to reach verdicts.

A BNP spokesman said after sentencing that the prosecution had been brought for political reasons. "We're not condoning it, but it's a quid pro quo to appease the Muslims," said Dr Phil Edwards, of the BNP.

"To keep them quiet, we'll snatch someone from white society. We certainly don't support the bloke. We condemn all forms of violence ... but I wouldn't have thought you could do any harm with what he had."

Dr Edwards said Cottage would not be standing as a candidate for the BNP again. "We never have anyone in the party with criminal convictions," he said, because "lefties and people on your newspaper" would publicise the fact.

Ex-BNP candidate jailed for stockpiling explosives, G, 31.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,2138648,00.html

1.45pm

Man 'died after being pelted

by children'

Tuesday July 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke and agencies

A pensioner died after being pelted with sticks and stones by a jeering mob of children aged between 10 and 13 as he played cricket with his son, a court was told today.

Ernest Norton suffered a heart attack and died after collapsing at outdoor tennis courts in February last year.

The 67-year-old was playing cricket with his 17-year-old son, James, at the Erith leisure centre, in Kent, when a group of 15 youths gathered at the fence and began shouting insults, the Old Bailey heard.

"As the abuse worsened, the group began throwing stones and pieces of wood at father and son," David Fisher QC, prosecuting, said. "Ernest Norton was struck at least twice on the head by these missiles.

"One of the stones hit him on the left side of his face causing a fracture to his cheekbone.

"He collapsed and suffered a heart attack. He received medical attention at the scene, but was pronounced dead later that afternoon."

The mob, allegedly including the defendants, ran away. Five youths, now aged between 12 and 14, deny Mr Norton's manslaughter and violent disorder.

Mr Norton lived with his wife, Linda, and son in Erith. He underwent a triple heart bypass operation in 1977 but had a "fit and active lifestyle", Mr Fisher said.

He said Mr Norton had been in good health on the Sunday when he died, but "the stress and trauma of abuse and a physical attack would make him vulnerable to a heart attack".

The defendants, two brothers aged 12 and 13, one boy aged 13 and two 14-year-olds, sat in the dock with their parents.

"Nobody relishes the fact that these five boys are on trial," Mr Fisher told the jury. "But their youth is no defence.

"They were quite old enough to know that to abuse Ernest Norton and his son was wrong and that to throw stones and pieces of wood at them was wrong.

"I expect they deeply regret the death of Ernest Norton and no doubt did not intend that he should die. But it was their joint course of conduct, quite probably with others, that caused his death."

The trial continues.

    Man 'died after being pelted by children', G, 31.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2138612,00.html

1pm update

Court ruling a blow to indeterminate sentences

Tuesday July 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Roxanne Escobales

The government's use of indeterminate sentences suffered a further blow today after the court of appeal ruled there had been a "general and systemic failure" in the sentencing of a sex offender.
 

David Walker, who was convicted of a sexual offence in 2005, contested the controversial indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP), which was introduced two years ago. The sentence binds a prisoner's release to completion of rehabilitative courses to prove he or she is no longer a danger to society.

However, Walker's lawyers argued that the conditions of his indeterminate sentence were unrealistic because the prison where he was serving time did not offer any parole courses.

Many prisons do not offer the proper courses, which means some prisoners are left to endure indefinite sentences beyond their tariff. The appeal ruling will be seen as a victory for prison advocacy groups, prison staff, inmates and judiciary members who have opposed IPPs.

Only five out of 147 people serving IPPs had been released by the end of April 2007, and most had exceeded their tariffs, which ranged from one to 18 months.

Today's ruling, if upheld on appeal, could leave ministers facing a multi-million-pound bill as they are forced to plough cash into prison treatment programmes.

The chairman of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Frances Cook, welcomed the verdict: "The court of appeal has now recognised that it is unlawful to detain prisoners indefinitely while failing to provide these individuals with the measures that would enable their release."

The decision came on the same day as the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) published a report that predicts as many as 12,000 people will be serving indeterminate sentences within the next four years. Currently 3,000 people are serving them.

The director of the PRT, Juliet Lyon, said IPPs had "been wished on the prison service without extra resources, leaving prisons under vast pressure and thousands of men held in overcrowded jails beyond their tariff, with no means to show that they do not present a risk to the public".

One prisoner told the PRT: "A lot of us with short tariffs are finding it difficult to get to a first stage lifer prison to do the courses being asked of us. It seems that the government have brought in these new sentences without thinking it through."

The PRT called on the government to review the 2003 act that brought IPPs into effect, and to revisit the way "dangerousness" is defined - a component in determining whether someone should be given an indeterminate sentence.

According to the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, IPPs were stretching an already overloaded prison system. In her annual report two years ago, she wrote: "The inability to progress these prisoners properly through the system is both a casualty of, and a contributor to, our overcrowded prisons."

Last night, Ms Owers told the BBC's Newsnight programme that IPPs were a short-sighted policy response. "There was no plan about how the prison system, already overcrowded, already under stress, was going to deal with them."

On July 12, in his new role as secretary of state for justice, Jack Straw said he would review indeterminate sentencing.

    Court ruling a blow to indeterminate sentences, G, 31.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,,2138457,00.html

Dangerous inmates held unlawfully, court rules

July 31, 2007
From Times Online
Nico Hines and agencies

Hundreds of Britain's most dangerous prisoners jailed under Labour's indeterminate sentences policy are being held in the UK on “arbitrary, unreasonable and unlawful” grounds, the High Court ruled today.

The ruling came in a case brought by two inmates serving indeterminate sentences, who appeared to be caught in a Catch 22. They can only be freed after proving they are no longer a threat to the public – but the courses they must complete to be considered for parole are not available.

The decision is likely to cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, if it is upheld on appeal. The prison service would be forced to provide sufficient training courses for all of the inmates serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences.

IPPs were introduced by David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, in 2005 for violent or sexual criminals. The prisoners are given minimum sentences to serve, but only made eligible for parole, once they can show they are no longer a danger to the public.

To convince the Parole Board that they have been rehabilitated, the prisoners must undertake a number of courses, but a lack of funding means some prisons do not offer the training at all, while others have dramatically oversubscribed courses.

The ruling comes as the Government is battling to control the UK’s prison overcrowding problem. Campaigners claim that IPPs are further contributing to the jail population crisis, with more than 3,000 offenders given indeterminate sentences in just two years.

The High Court today ruled that Nicholas Wells, whose 12-month minimum sentence for attempted robbery expired last September, is being held unlawfully. The Parole Board finally reviewed his case eight months after his tariff was spent, but they refused to release him because he had not done any offence-focused work.

He had failed to undertake the training because his prison did not have the facilities to run the courses. The Board ruled that without rehabilitation, his risk to the public remained high and he is still behind bars.

David Walker's 18-month tariff for indecent assault expires in October and he is suffering a similar problem. The judges also ruled that his detention is unlawful because he is being held at Doncaster jail where he has no access to any meaningful rehabilitation course.

Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Mitting, said: “To the extent that the prisoner remains incarcerated after tariff expiry without any current and effective assessment of the danger he does or does not pose, his detention cannot in reason be justified. It is therefore unlawful.”

The judges granted a declaration that Justice Secretary Jack Straw “has acted unlawfully by failing to provide for measures to enable prisoners serving IPP sentences to demonstrate to the Parole Board, by the end of their minimum term, that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for them to be confined”.

Mr Straw announced an urgent review of IPPs last week, concern about the sentences has already been raised by many quarters of the judiciary, prison staff, officials and inmates.

    Dangerous inmates held unlawfully, court rules, Ts online, 31.7.2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2174014.ece

1.30pm

Langham denounces 'sick' accuser

Monday July 30, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Press Association

The woman who claimed Chris Langham took her virginity at 14 was "sick", the actor told a court today.

Langham - who is also charged with downloading child pornography - denied having a lust for young girls, Maidstone crown court heard.

The 58-year-old claimed his alleged victim, who is now 25, jokingly told him she wanted to kill his children and had violent fantasies about him punching her in the face.

Prosecutor Richard Barraclough QC suggested Langham was "prepared to torture her by making outrageous allegations against her". However, the actor said: "She's a sick person - I've never made any allegations against her.

"I mean that in a completely compassionate way. It's not a criticism or judgment. I can't say I like her very much, but everybody deserves compassion."

The jury has heard that Langham gave acting lessons to the woman in his dressing room when he was starring in Les Miserables in the West End of London. She claims she lost her virginity to him at a hotel in the capital shortly afterwards.

The actor said his arrest on child porn charges in November 2005 had troubled the woman. "She was very upset by the charges ... and she said she thought I was guilty," he added. "She wanted to know if my relationship with her was not affected by a sexual interest in children."

He said the woman was also worried that "I was looking at her in that way", adding: "I was able to say that I wasn't."

Mr Barraclough asked: "Were you frightened that this girl was going to go to the police and complain about the sexual activity you'd had with her as a child?" Langham replied: "No."

He was arrested 10 months later for allegedly having underage sex with her, and said it was a "terrifying" experience. He had previously admitted there was sexual contact between them when she was 18, and said he regretted it.

When asked why he offered her free theatre tickets after this, he told the jury: "The thing you have to remember is I have always been fond of her. She was a terribly frail person."

The prosecutor suggested Langham had been a father figure to her. The actor said: "I hope there was love and affection between us ... there's nothing dishonourable about that."

When asked why he thought she had told her best friend and a doctor that she had sex with him, he replied: "I think I'm the only person who didn't do anything to her. I tried to behave in an honourable way with her."

Mr Barraclough said the defence had suggested to the jury that the woman had made the allegations against Langham because she was unable to cope with him rejecting her. He responded: "I don't know what she's saying. I'm only here to speak my own truth."

Langham, of Golford, near Cranbrook in Kent, denies 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child between September and November 2005.

He also denies six counts of indecent assault and two counts of buggery between January 1996 and April 2000. Four further counts of indecent assault were dropped after the Crown accepted there was no evidence to support them.

    Langham denounces 'sick' accuser, G, 30.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2137885,00.html

3pm update

Langham admits looking at child pornography

Friday July 27, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker and agencies

The actor Chris Langham today admitted in court he was guilty of looking at child pornography, saying he had only denied the charges to make the point he was not a paedophile.

After a dramatic first day of evidence at Maidstone crown court yesterday, during which the 58-year-old star of The Thick of It broke down and recounted being abused as an eight-year-old child, Mr Langham faced cross examination this morning.

The award-winning actor and writer denies charges of possessing child pornography and the indecent assault of a girl.

The court was told that Mr Langham had sex with a female fan when she was aged 14. He insists he had only one sexual encounter with the woman, now 25, when she was 18.

Prosecutor Richard Barraclough QC asked Mr Langham today if he had pleaded not guilty because the charges effectively labelled him a paedophile.

"Yes that's correct," the actor replied. "But you are guilty of the images counts?" Mr Barraclough asked. "Yes, that's correct," the actor replied.

"So your plea of not guilty is simply some sort of statement that you are not a paedophile?" Mr Barraclough said. "Yes, that's absolutely correct," Mr Langham answered.

Mr Langham said yesterday he had looked at child pornography - an experience he described as like "putting my face in a chainsaw" - to better understand abuse committed on himself when he was aged eight, and as research for the BBC comedy Help, which he wrote with comedy actor Paul Whitehouse.

"This is all pseudo psychobabble, Mr Langham," Mr Barraclough told him. "You weren't doing it for research but for your own personal motives."

The actor responded: "It's to do with resolving a longstanding psychological problem."

"I suppose it's very personal to me and something I didn't feel comfortable about, but I was also aware of the fact it was illegal. I was aware of the fact it was illegal and I did it anyway," he said.

When asked if he was a sick man, he replied: "I would describe myself as a human being, a work in progress, as we all are."

The actor also said he had not believed it was a criminal act to look at material that was "posted openly".

During subsequent questioning, Mr Langham said he felt the victims being abused in child pornography were "the only brothers and sisters that I have".

Asked why he had saved so many images on his computer, he replied: "I thought if I could become angry enough I might be able to break through the problem I have in accessing this stuff in myself."

He admitted taking out a paying subscription to a US website featuring women being raped, but said violence against women did not sexually arouse him.

"I'm fascinated by what people do and I'm fascinated by people tying each other up and doing weird sexual things to each other; I think it's interesting," he said.

When told the vast majority of images he viewed featured pre-teen girls, Mr Langham denied finding them attractive, saying: "Little girls are not my prominent interest sexually. Little girls are not my interest at all."

The actor became upset when Mr Barraclough asked him whether having sexual relations with an underage girl amounted to "letting out the eight-year-old boy" who had himself been abused.

"Please don't mock," Mr Langham replied, "I'm frightened."

Mr Langham, of Golford, near Cranbrook, Kent, denies 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child between September and November 2005. He also denies six counts of indecent assault and two counts of buggery between January 1996 and April 2000. The jury was directed by Judge Philip Statman to return not guilty verdicts on four other indecent assault charges.

The trial continues.

    Langham admits looking at child pornography, G, 27.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2136224,00.html

3pm

Mother-in-law guilty of 'honour' murder

Thursday July 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

The mother-in-law and husband of a Heathrow airport customs officer were today found guilty of arranging her death in a so-called "honour killing".

Bachan Athwal, 70, and her son Sukhdave, 43, were told by Judge Giles Forrester at the Old Bailey that they faced life sentences for the murder of Surjit Athwal. The judge remanded the pair until a sentencing hearing on September 19.

Surjit, 27, never returned from a trip with her mother-in-law to a family wedding in India in December 1998, the Old Bailey trial had heard.

Bachan, of Hayes, west London, arranged for Surjit to "disappear off the surface of the earth" after discovering that she was having an affair.

Bachan, a grandmother of 16 children, and her son later said that she had got rid of Surjit by getting a relative to strangle her and throw her body into a river in the Punjab.

The court heard that Bachan called a family meeting to discuss killing Surjit a month before she vanished.

The prosecutor, Michael Worsley QC, said Surjit, who was originally from Coventry, was a vivacious young woman whose western ways had annoyed the family.

Mr Worsley said that "family honour was at stake" when it was discovered she was having an affair with a married man and wanted a divorce from Sukhdave, a Heathrow bus driver.

Bachan, the most senior member of the Sikh family, vowed a divorce would only take place "over my dead body", the court heard.

    Mother-in-law guilty of 'honour' murder, G, 26.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2135470,00.html

Kiyan's killer given life sentence

Thursday July 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
James Sturcke and agencies

A teenager has been sentenced to at least 13 years in prison for the murder of the promising young footballer Kiyan Prince, who was stabbed to death outside his school gates.

Hannad Hasan, 17, a Somalian refugee, was given a life sentence at the Old Bailey yesterday for the 15-year-old's murder in May last year. He would be recommended for deportation on release from prison, the judge said.

Kiyan, who played for the youth team of Queens' Park Rangers, was stabbed through the heart when he intervened in a play fight outside the London Academy in Edgware, north-west London.

Hasan, who lived with his mother in Colindale, north London, grabbed Kiyan in a headlock, stabbing him in the heart, stomach and arm with a penknife he later described as "a little toy".

The youth had admitted the manslaughter of Kiyan, described as one of the "brightest talents" on the QPR youth team, but was convicted of murder earlier this month at the Old Bailey.

Today he stood in the dock with his head bowed as the judge, Paul Worsley, told him he had shown little genuine remorse for killing the popular schoolboy.

"This is yet another case of a wholly unprovoked stabbing in a public place, by a person who produced a knife and plunged it into the heart of their unarmed victim," the judge said.

"Taking the life of another is always a terrible thing; taking the life of a talented, popular 15-year-old schoolboy who was known to you and who had done you no wrong and had everything to live for defies description.

"You have deprived his family and schoolfriends of a role model."

The judge described victim statements from Kiyan's parents, which were read out in court, as a moving tribute to "the bright star in their lives".

It was the third time the youth had gone on trial for the murder. In the original trial the jury could not agree on a verdict, and a second trial collapsed in December last year after Kiyan's distraught father approached a juror on her way home.

After his arrest, Hasan told police that he hoped Kiyan's mother could forgive him. He said: "I am terribly sorry. I know how my mum would feel."

He told police he had only intended to give Kiyan "just a little scratch" with the knife. He added: "I did not want to stick it in him. I did not want to kill him. I am thinking this is like a dream."

After the jury's verdict earlier this month, Kiyan's family released a statement saying: "Kiyan's life being taken from us in this cruel way has done irreparable damage to our family. I would like to thank the jury for their wisdom and doing their part in bringing Kiyan's murderer to justice.

"Knife crime will continue to rise in numbers unless the government begins to take this knife culture seriously by coming down hard on potential murderers, because that's what a person carrying a knife is, and until then hard-working people with close families will continue to suffer."

    Kiyan's killer given life sentence, G, 26.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2135287,00.html

3.45pm update

Langham tells court he was abused as a child

Thursday July 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Fred Attewill and agencies


The comedian Chris Langham, who is standing trial on charges of indecent assault and child pornography, told jurors today that he was abused as a child.

He made the claim before admitting that he had viewed child pornography online to research a sketch involving a sex offender for the BBC TV series Help.

He said he realised there was "no excuse" for viewing such material and claimed he felt sick when he had seen it. He likened the experience to "putting my face in a chainsaw". Mr Langham, who wept in the witness box as he denied being a paedophile, told jurors he was abused when he was eight years old and living in Canada with his parents.

He also denied having sex with a 14-year-old girl while he was performing in Les Miserables in the West End of London.

The 58-year-old, who starred in Help and The Thick of it, also said his sexuality was "depressingly normal for a man of my age".

Giving evidence at Maidstone crown court, he said he had been bullied after moving to Canada.

"I was eight. My parents had moved to Canada when I was five. I was quite a frightened child. I got beaten up all the time because I spoke with an English accent," he said.

"I was trying to be a snob like my parents, but it's hard to be a snob when you are not as good as the people around you.

"An incident occurred when I got taken sailing when I was eight in Ontario. I stayed in a tent with this guy. I don't remember his name. He had red hair and red pubic hair."

Looking down, he added: "I don't want to go into detail if you don't mind."

He went on to say that he felt "deep, deep shame" about the incident and added: "I hate myself for that, and have always hated myself for my approval-seeking."

Mr Langham later tried to explain to the jury why he had felt he needed to look at child pornography to research a character called Pedro, dubbed a "minor" sex offender, who was to be played by his co-star Paul Whitehouse in the second series of Help.

He said: "I know about the world of being at the receiving end of a paedophile but I don't know about paedophilia, the networks, the slang, what does the room look like."

He said he was now well aware of the "ghastliness" of the material that he had viewed.

Mr Langham gave a graphic description of how he felt watching the images, but admitted he returned to watch them.

"My heart started beating, my mouth went dry and I started feeling sick," he said.

"I tried to think what was the connection that made me go there."

He said he had never hoarded a library of clips, but said that had he not been arrested, he might have looked at further images.

He said: "I have no sexual interest in children, I have children myself. I find them [the images] very upsetting. To me it was like putting my face in a chainsaw. I had to get out.

"I did it on four occasions and had I not been arrested, I probably would have done it again."

Asked why he returned to view the images. Mr Langham replied: "Because it's an issue in my life. It was horrible."

Mr Langham said the police "had me on a plate" when he was arrested for watching underage internet pornography "because I said I did it".

But he added: "They wanted to convict me on the basis I had an abnormal interest in children, that I'm a paedophile, and I'm not."

With his voice breaking with emotion, he told the court: "That part of the crime is a life sentence and that is the part of the crime I did not do.

"I have to stand up and tell you the truth but I will not stand here and admit a crime I didn't commit.

"I'd like to make it clear I am not taking the crime I committed lightly. I did it in an arrogant way, I know who I am. I know who I am. And I did a very arrogant thing to not think that the law applied to me."

Mr Langham went on to tell the jury he had never had sex with an underage girl while acting in Les Miserables in the 1990s.

It has been alleged that he had sex with the girl, now aged 25, on numerous occasions after performances at London's Palace Theatre, in his dressing room, car, hotels and home.

Mr Langham admitted having sex with her when she was over 18 but denied having underage intercourse with her.

He added that he had given the girl between four and six acting lessons but said that his dressing room was too small and the theatre environment too busy for anything more to take place.

He said: "There is constantly a stream of visitors and chatting that goes on on the dressing room stairs and in the dressing rooms.

"You have to understand that theatre is a fantastically gossipy place and 90% of things don't happen. It's the most insane place to have an affair, the theatre."

The actor claimed he was concerned for the girl because she was anorexic and being bullied at school and seemed "to need some help" in dealing with the suicide of a friend.

He denies 15 charges of making indecent images of a child. He also denies six charges of indecent assault, and two charges of buggery, which relate to the teenage girl he met during Les Miserables.

The jury was this morning told by the judge Philip Statman to find him not guilty of four counts of indecent assault allegedly carried out on a teenage girl under 16 between January 8 1996 and April 7 1998.

The trial continues.

    Langham tells court he was abused as a child, G, 26.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2135124,00.html

10.45am

I am not a paedophile, Langham tells court

Thursday July 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Fred Attewill and agencies


The comedian Chris Langham wept in the witness box this morning as he denied being a paedophile.

The star of Help and The Thick of It, whose defence counsel claims he downloaded child pornography for research, said he now realised there was no excuse for viewing such material.

He said the police "had me on a plate" when he was arrested for watching online underage pornography "because I said I did it".

But he added: "They wanted to convict me on the basis I had an abnormal interest in children, that I'm a paedophile, and I'm not."

As his voice broke with emotion while giving evidence at Maidstone crown court, he said: "That part of the crime is a life sentence and that is the part of the crime I did not do.

"I have to stand up and tell you the truth but I will not stand here and admit a crime I didn't commit.

"I'd like to make it clear I am not taking the crime I committed lightly. I did it in an arrogant way, I know who I am. I know who I am. And I did a very arrogant thing to not think that the law applied to me."

Mr Langham, 58, denies 15 charges of making indecent images of a child. He also denies six charges of indecent assault, and two charges of buggery, which relate to a teenage girl he met at the stage door of a London musical in the mid-1990s.

The comedian Paul Whitehouse told the court on Tuesday that there had been no need for Mr Langham to watch videos of children being sexually abused, as part of research for a BBC comedy show the two men were writing.

The star of the Fast Show said Mr Langham did not tell him he had downloaded child pornography while they were working on the BBC2 comedy Help, and added that he was unhappy to be dragged into the "sordid affair".

Mr Langham's defence counsel has claimed the actor downloaded child pornography as part of his research for Help, in which he played a psychiatrist.

In the second series, which was never screened, Mr Whitehouse was to play a sex offender called Pedro.

A police computer expert has also described how he found graphic videos of children on Mr Langham's home computer, including images of seven-year-olds being sexually abused and, in some cases, raped.

Christopher Crute, a forensic computer analyst for Kent police, said some of the file names referred to young children and babies while others included the words Lolita, incest and rape. Many of them included the acronym PTHC, which Mr Crute said referred to "pre-teen hardcore" material.

The images were found during a police raid at Mr Langham's home in Golford, near Cranbrook, in November 2005.

The jury was this morning told by the judge Philip Statman to find him not guilty of four counts of indecent assault allegedly carried out on a teenage girl under 16 between January 8 1996 and April 7 1998.

    I am not a paedophile, Langham tells court, G, 26.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2135124,00.html

3.45pm

Rape conviction rates remain near record low

Friday July 20, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Sandra Laville, crime correspondent

Rape conviction rates remain close to an all-time low despite efforts by the government, police and prosecutors to improve performance, according to Home Office research published today.

The study into attrition rates for rape cases sampled 676 complaints from 2003-4 and found that 6% resulted in an offender being convicted.

The report said the conviction rate in England and Wales rose to 13% when taking into account lesser offences such as indecent assault.

But in rape cases there was virtually no change from the record low conviction rate of 5.5% reported two years ago by the Home Office. That compares to conviction rates of up to 32% in the 1970s.

The study took in cases from eight police forces, three of which had a record of high detection rates and two of low detection rates.

It found there was a high attrition rate as cases passed through the criminal justice system.

Most often, cases were ended between the report of the crime and the charge. The most common reasons the report found for the failure to bring charges were insufficient evidence (in 40% of cases) and the complainant withdrawing their allegation (35% of cases).

Where the complainant withdrew support for the process, the most common reasons given were not wishing to go through with the investigative or court process and wanting to move on.

A study two years ago by researchers at London Metropolitan University said rape conviction rates had reached a record low because of a culture of scepticism among the police.

Today's report said improved victim care, better communication and action to address concerns of reprisal would help to minimise the number of cases dropped because complainants stopped cooperating with the investigation.

"Concern about various aspects of the investigation and prosecution of rape cases continues to be an important theme within the debates about law and order," the report said.

The study was commissioned amid concerns about the drop in detection rates for all sexual offences since 1997.

Reports of rapes have risen dramatically, partly as a result of high-profile campaigns to encourage victims to come forward. Recorded cases rose from 6,281 in 1997 to 12,354 in 2003/4.

Of the sample of 676 cases, women aged between 16 and 25 represented the largest single group of complainants. Stranger rapes accounted for 14% of cases, while one-fifth of cases involved complaints against partners or ex-partners, and more than two-thirds of alleged offences were in the complainant's home.

In January it was announced that a nationwide network of specialist rape prosecutors was to be set up.

    Rape conviction rates remain near record low, G, 20.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2131348,00.html

1.15pm

Three 'honour' murderers jailed for life

Friday July 20, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Fred Attewill and Karen McVeigh


Three men who murdered a young Kurdish woman in an "honour killing" during which she was tortured and raped were today sentenced to life imprisonment.

Her father, uncle and a family associate were all convicted of what an Old Bailey judge described as a "callous murder". The men strangled Banaz Mahmod, 20, in January 2006 because they disapproved of her boyfriend. Her body was found three months later in a suitcase buried in a pit in Birmingham.

The victim's father, Mahmod Mahmod, who ordered the killing, was told he would serve a minimum of 20 years. His brother Ari Mahmod will spend a minimum of 23 years behind bars, while the third murderer, Mohamad Hama, will not be eligible for release for 17 years.

Sentencing them today at the Old Bailey, Brian Barker, the common serjeant of London, said: "This was a barbaric and callous crime.

"You are hard and unswerving men to whom apparently the respect from the community is more important that your own flesh and blood."

Banaz's boyfriend, Rahmat Sulemani, also a Kurd, said her murder had ruined his life and he had tried to kill himself several times.

"She was the sweetest person in the world. She was my future," he said.

"Banaz and I were in love. My life very much depended on Banaz's life. We were going to get married and have children. We hoped for a girl and boy and had even chosen their names."

Mr Sulemani said he was tortured by the thought of what happened to his lover in her final hours. "I don't want to think about what happened to her but I cannot get it out of my mind. I am still having nightmares about what happened to Banaz."

Yesterday the Old Bailey heard how Hama, 30, of West Norwood, boasted how he had finally stamped on Ms Mahmod's neck to "get her soul out".

Hama, an associate of Mahmod Mahmod, laughed and joked as he described how they subjected her to a series of degrading acts of sexual violence during a two-hour ordeal in her home.

The murder was planned and ordered by her father, Mahmod Mahmod, 50, of Wimbledon, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 52, of Mitcham, after she fell in love with a man they deemed unsuitable.

The full details of her killing emerged in a pre-sentence hearing yesterday to decide what part Hama had played. He pleaded guilty to murder, and the prosecution said he took part but claimed he only helped bury the body.

Hama's account was secretly taped by police during prison visits after his arrest in February 2006, the court heard. "Her soul wouldn't leave the body. It took half an hour," he told an unnamed visitor to Belmarsh prison, believed to have been a relative. "I was kicking and stamping on her neck to get her soul out."

He described how he stood with one foot on her back as another man prepared the ligature that would kill her, how he "shut her up quickly" and how she had vomited.

Victor Temple, QC, prosecuting, said: "Hama is no doubt speaking about how long it took to murder her. There is laughter. That is nothing to do with the burial. It's the placing of the foot so Hama could pull the ligature."

The court was told that Ms Mahmod's body was found clad only in pants. He told the court that none of the defendants had expressed the slightest remorse for the "cold-blooded and callously executed" murder.

In one taped conversation Hama referred to a series of sexually abusive acts carried out on Ms Mahmod over more than two hours. No evidence of sexual abuse was put forward in the trial.

In another he described how he helped drag her body from her home in Morden to a waiting car.

Amid laughter, Hama said: "The road was crowded and a police car came by. Cars were passing by and we were dragging the bag. The handle broke off. Man, I swear I was standing there, I almost ran away."

The visitor asked: "Who was dragging?" Hama replied: "Mr Ari ... We were around him, each side of him - as God is my witness - her hair was sticking out, her elbow was sticking out. It was a stupid, silly thing. We put the bag on our shoulder to take it away."

Hama was one of five men Ms Mahmod had named in a letter to police as being involved in a plot to kill her.

    Three 'honour' murderers jailed for life, G, 20.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2131248,00.html

'Honour' killer boasted of stamping on woman's neck

· Kurdish victim was raped and tortured for two hours
· Jokes and laughter heard in description of murder

Friday July 20, 2007
Guardian
Karen McVeigh

One of the gang who tortured, raped and strangled a young Kurdish woman in an "honour killing" boasted of how he had finally stamped on her neck to "get her soul out", the Old Bailey heard yesterday.

Mohamad Hama, 30, laughed and joked as he described how they subjected Banaz Mahmod to a series of degrading acts of sexual violence during a 2½-hour ordeal in her home. Ms Mahmod, 20, disappeared last January. Her body was found three months later, in a suitcase buried in a pit in Birmingham. Her murder was planned and ordered by her father, Mahmod Mahmod, 50, and her uncle, Ari Mahmod, 52, after she fell in love with a man they deemed unsuitable.

The full details of her killing emerged in a pre-sentence hearing yesterday to decide what part Hama, an associate of Ari Mahmod, had played. The prosecution says Hama took part in the murder, but he claims he only helped bury her body.

Hama's account of the murder was secretly taped by police during prison visits after his arrest in February 2006, the court heard. "Her soul wouldn't leave the body. It took half an hour," he told an unnamed visitor to Belmarsh, believed to be a relative. "I was kicking and stamping on her neck to get her soul out."

He described how he stood with one foot on her back as another man prepared the ligature that would kill her, how he would "shut her up quickly" and how she had vomited during her ordeal. The court was told that when Ms Mahmod was found she was only wearing pants. Victor Temple, QC, prosecuting, said: "Hama is no doubt speaking about how long it took to murder her. There is laughter. That is nothing to do with the burial. It's the placing of the foot so Hama could pull the ligature." He told the court that none of the defendants had expressed the slightest degree of remorse for Ms Mahmod's "cold-blooded and callously executed" murder. In one taped conversation Hama refers to a series of sexually abusive acts carried out on Ms Mahmod over "more than two hours". No evidence of sexual abuse was put forward in the trial.

In another, in which he describes how he helped drag her body from her home in Morden to a waiting car.

Amid laughter, Hama said: "The road was crowded and a police car came by. Cars were passing by and we were dragging the bag. The handle broke off. Man, I swear I was standing there, I almost ran away." The visitor asks: "Who was dragging?" Hama replies: "Mr Ari."

"We were around him, each side of him - as God is my witness - her hair was sticking out, her elbow was sticking out. It was a stupid, silly thing. We put the bag on our shoulder to take it away."

Hama's counsel, Malcolm Swift QC, told the judge Hama was repeating details given to him by Ari. Although involved in the planning of the murder, there was evidence he was at home that day.

The Crown says Hama was the leader of the gang recruited by the Mahmod brothers to carry out their plans to murder Ms Mahmod and her boyfriend, Rahmat Sulemani. Hama was one of five men Ms Mahmod had named in a letter to police as being involved in a plot to kill her.

Hama, of West Norwood, has pleaded guilty to the murder. Mahmod Mahmod, of Wimbledon, south London, and Ari Mahmod, of Mitcham, were found guilty of murder last month. They will all be sentenced today.

    'Honour' killer boasted of stamping on woman's neck, G, 20.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2130805,00.html

2pm

Four jailed over violent slogans at cartoon protest

Wednesday July 18, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies


Four men were today given given jail sentences ranging from four to six years over last year's protests in London against cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that were originally published in Denmark.

Three of the men, Mizanur Rahman, 24, Umran Javed, 27, and Abdul Muhid, 25, were found guilty of soliciting murder during the march to the Danish embassy in central London in February 2006.

During the march, some of the 300 protesters called for terrorist attacks in London and Europe. Rahman, of Palmers Green, north London, called for soldiers to be brought back from Iraq in body bags.

Javed, of Washwood Heath Road, Birmingham, was recorded on video by the police shouting "Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA".

Muhid, of Whitechapel, east London, was seen leading a crowd chanting "Bomb, bomb the UK", and holding placards calling for annihilation.

Today Rahman, Javed and Muhid were sentenced at the Old Bailey to six years each in prison. The fourth man, Abdul Saleem, 32, was convicted of using words likely to stir up racial hatred and sentenced to four years in jail. Saleem, of Poplar, east London, was heard chanting: "7/7 on its way" and "Europe you will pay with your blood".

As the judge, Brian Barker, handed down the sentences today, a group of around 40 protesters waved banners outside the Old Bailey. The protesters, many of them masked with scarves or burkas, chanted slogans and carried placards such as "Muslims Under Siege". Police officers stood by as the protesters were kept behind barriers across the road from the court.

The cartoons were first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They included drawings of the Prophet Muhammad wearing headdress shaped like a bomb, while another showed him saying paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers.

The London protest was organised after the images were reprinted in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain.

The Danish newspaper had apologised on January 31 but three days later around 60 people gathered outside the London embassy, while up to 300 marched to there from Regent's Park mosque.

The Old Bailey was told the demonstration had been "volatile and passionate", and police had deployed "evidence-gathering teams" throughout the march. Rahman and Javed were found guilty of one count of soliciting murder and of using words likely to stir up racial hatred. Muhid was found guilty of two counts of soliciting murder.

After today's sentencing, Chief Superintendent Ian Thomas of the Metropolitan police said: "We have a long history of facilitating lawful demonstration, taking into account freedom of speech, a right which we are fortunate to have, and this applies across the board. However, these people stepped over that line and broke the law."

    Four jailed over violent slogans at cartoon protest, G, 18.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2129234,00.html

12.15pm

Man in court over Manchester triple murder

Wednesday July 18, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies


A man appeared in court today charged with murdering a mother and her two children.

Pierre Williams, 32, appeared at Manchester magistrates court accused of murdering Beverley Samuels, 36, her daughter Kesha Wizzart, 18, and son Fred Wizzart, 13, at their home in Fallowfield, Manchester.

Dressed in a blue sweatshirt and dark trousers, Mr Williams spoke only to confirm his name and personal details and that he understood proceedings.

Mr Williams was described in court as being of no fixed abode as his home address in Selly Oak, Birmingham, was being searched by forensics officers.

No application for bail was made. Mr Williams was remanded in custody to appear at Manchester crown court on July 25.

The bodies of Ms Samuels and her two children were discovered by a member of the public at their red-brick terrace house in Thelwall Avenue at around 7pm last Thursday. A post-mortem examination revealed all three had died of head injuries.

Ms Samuels worked as a nurse at the Manchester Royal Infirmary and was a friend of Mr Williams.

Kesha, a former pupil of Parrs Wood high school, had just completed her A-levels and had won a scholarship to study law at the University of Manchester.

She had been awarded an A grade for her law A-level and was awaiting results in English and philosophy. The teenager hoped to become a barrister.

Three years ago, Kesha performed as Toni Braxton singing the ballad Unbreak My Heart on the junior version of the ITV talent show Stars In Their Eyes.

    Man in court over Manchester triple murder, G, 18.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2129174,00.html

2pm update

Judge grants Shambo reprieve

Monday July 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Steven Morris

Shambo, the temple bullock ordered destroyed after a test suggested he may have TB, was reprieved by a high court judge today.

Mr Justice Hickinbottom ruled the decision by the Welsh assembly that Shambo had to be killed to protect humans and other animals was unlawful and should be reconsidered. He ordered the Welsh government to pay the £50,000 court costs of the hearing, along with the legal fees of the Hindu community that owns Shambo.

The Welsh government this afternoon lodged an appeal, which could be heard this week or next.

The judge said it was "very likely" that Shambo was infected with TB but the assembly needed to reconsider whether killing the animal because of public health fears outweighed the rights of the Hindu monks who say killing him would desecrate their religious community.

His ruling did not "guarantee" that Shambo would live until he died naturally. "This judgment merely rules that the decisions of 3 May and 3 July to issue the slaughter notice and to pursue the slaughter under that notice were unlawful and will be quashed," he said.

The monks at the Skanda Vale community had argued that the six-year-old Fresian was central to their belief that all life is sacred, and that if he were killed it would ruin the spiritual power built up at the community in Carmarthenshire over three decades. Sitting at Cardiff, Mr Justice Hickinbottom said the assembly government had "adopted the wrong approach in this case".

"They will be obliged to reconsider the public health objectives that underlie the surveillance and slaughter policy, and come to a view as to whether, in the reasonable pursuit of those objectives, the slaughter of this animal - or some less intrusive measure - would be proportional given the serious infringement of the community's rights ... that slaughter would involve," he said. The judge said the danger to humans from bovine TB was "particularly small" and the risk to other animals was minimised by isolating the bull.

The decision will embarrass the Welsh assembly's rural affairs minister, Jane Davidson, who rejected appeals for clemency from Hindus around the world.

The ruling caused immediate anger amongst farmers who have had valuable cattle destroyed after tests showed their animals may have been exposed to TB. Dai Davies, president of the National Farmers' Union in Wales said he was "very disappointed". David Anderson QC, for Skanda Vale, had told the court: "He is an animal whose slaughter would constitute a violation of deeply held religious views."

He said Shambo was "central" to the community's beliefs. "He is regarded as a symbol of the sanctity of life, the central tenet of Hindu religious belief, recognising the embodied divinity in all life. For him to be killed would be an act of serious desecration of the temple." The community believes the spirit in a bullock is no different from that in a human being - their souls are merely at different stages of their journey. Mr Anderson said: "It must therefore be recognised that any premature killing of an animal is no more justified than the killing of a human being."

He said killing Shambo would interfere with the community's right to "manifest" its religious beliefs under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On a practical level, Mr Anderson said studies on other animals, including a gorilla, had shown TB could be treated. He said the monks were prepared to spend "whatever is reasonably required" to find an alternative to slaughter, such as isolation and antibiotics.

Clive Lewis, for the Welsh government, insisted in court: "Bovine TB is a serious infection which is capable of transmission from cattle to other animals, including wildlife and indeed capable of transmission to humans." Britain had the highest rate of infection in Europe and south-west Wales was a particular "hot spot", he said. He said Wales's rural affairs minister, Ms Davidson, had "asked herself what steps are necessary to protect health. This was a long, careful, constructive consideration at the highest level."

The fact that a gorilla had been treated successfully did not mean a bullock could be cured, Mr Lewis argued.

    Judge grants Shambo reprieve, G, 16.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,,2127569,00.html

Schoolgirl loses court fight to wear 'purity ring'

Monday July 16, 2007
EducationGuardian.co.uk
Staff and agencies

A teenage girl has lost her high court challenge over a ban preventing her from wearing a Christian "purity ring".

Sixteen-year-old Lydia Playfoot claimed the ban at the Millais school in Horsham, West Sussex, was an "unlawful interference" with her right to express her Christian faith.

In a statement she said she was "very disappointed" by the decision by deputy high court judge Michael Supperstone QC.

Lydia said: "I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the high court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside of marriage."

She said she believed the ruling "will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organisations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practising their faith".

She added: "Over two years ago, I was concerned at the number of teenagers who were catching sexually transmitted diseases, getting pregnant and/or having abortions.

"The government's sex education programme is not working, and the pressure on young people to 'give in' to sex continues to increase. This is often because of the media's focus on sex and the expectations of others."

Lydia is one of a group of Christians at the Millais school who wore the ring engraved with a biblical verse as a sign of their belief in abstinence from sex until marriage.

In court her lawyers claimed that her secondary school, which allows Muslim and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring.

The school denied her claims, arguing that the purity ring is not an integral part of the Christian faith and contravenes its uniform policy.

At a recent hearing at the high court in London, human rights barrister Paul Diamond, appearing for Lydia, argued that the secular school authorities had no right to set themselves up as arbiters of faith and "cannot rule on religious truth".

He argued that the school authorities were violating Lydia's right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" under article nine of the European convention on human rights.

The rings stem from the "Silver Ring Thing" (SRT) movement which started in the United States.

SRT rings are worn by Christian teenagers to symbolise a pledge not to have sex before marriage and have led to an impassioned debate over religious expression and sex education.

Mr Diamond told the court that the case raised a number of issues relating to Lydia's fundamental right to "manifest her religion by the wearing of the Silver Ring Thing".

He argued that secular authorities, including school authorities, "lack capacity to rule on the correct manifestation of religious belief".

He said a question the judge would have to answer was: "What are the religious rights of schoolchildren in the school context?"

He argued that the rights guaranteed under human rights law included the freedom to manifest religious belief "in worship, teaching, practice and observance".

Mr Diamond, who also represented Nadia Eweida in the British Airways "cross" case, argued: "Secular authorities cannot rule on religious truth."

He said no secular inquiry - "be it by the courts, be it by the school board governors, or be it by British Airways" - could decide on what were appropriate manifestations of belief.

He said: "That is the forbidden inquiry. Secular authorities and institutions cannot be arbiters of religious faith."

Their duty was to remain "neutral and impartial in this very sensitive field".

    Schoolgirl loses court fight to wear 'purity ring', G, 16.7.2007, http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2127610,00.html

1.15pm update

Four July 21 plotters jailed for life

Wednesday July 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker and agencies

The four convicted July 21 bombers were today jailed for life for an al-Qaida-led plot to murder dozens of people on London's public transport network.

Muktar Said Ibrahim, Yassin Omar, Ramzi Mohammed and Hussain Osman could not be considered for release for 40 years, judge Mr Justice Fulford QC said.

Their plan had been "a viable, indeed a very nearly successful, attempt at mass murder", he told Woolwich crown court in south-east London.

"It is clear that at least 50 people would have died, hundreds of people would have been wounded.

"Thousands would have had their lives permanently damaged, disfigured or otherwise, whether they were Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist."

The plot not only mirrored the attack on July 7, two weeks earlier - when four suicide bombers killed themselves and 52 other people on a bus and three tubes trains - but was clearly connected to it, the judge added.

"I have no doubt that they were both part of an al-Qaida-inspired and controlled sequence of attacks," Mr Justice Fulford said.

The trial had heard how Ibrahim, the ringleader of the plot, had been in Pakistan at the same time as two of the July 7 bombers. This was "no coincidence, in my view", the judge said.

"It seems to me that not only did the defendant do this with the full knowledge of what had happened on July 7, but that their preparations were organised as part of a parallel but separate team," he added.

Having seen the results of the July 7 attacks, the four plotters "knew exactly what the result" of their own attack would be, the judge noted.

"The family and friends of the dead and the injured, the hundreds, indeed thousands, captured underground in terrifying circumstances - the smoke, the screams of the wounded and the dying - this each defendant knew."

On Monday, Ibrahim, 29, of Stoke Newington, north London; 26-year-old Omar, of New Southgate, north London; Mohammed, 25, of North Kensington, west London; and 28-year-old Osman, of no fixed address, were found guilty of conspiracy to murder after a six-month trial.

As the sentences were read out, Ibrahim shook his head slightly, Omar stared at the judge and Osman clutched a Qur'an. Only Mohammed appeared to be trying to contain his emotions.

The jury was discharged yesterday after failing to reach a decision on two other defendants, Manfo Kwaku Asiedu and Adel Yahya, both of whom deny conspiracy to murder.

Mr Asiedu, 34, of no fixed address, and 24-year-old Mr Yahya, of Tottenham, north London, will face a retrial, prosecutors said today.

None of the four convicted men's homemade hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour bombs, which were carried in rucksacks, detonated properly. The judge said that, after hearing scientific evidence about why the bombs failed, his view was that the plot had come "very close to succeeding".

Ibrahim insisted the bombs were never intended to hurt anyone and were meant to be a protest against the Iraq war. However, the Crown Prosecution Service today said it was clear that the four men had planned to "kill and main on a massive scale".

"They could have been in no doubt as to the consequences of their actions," Susan Hemming, head of the CPS counterterrorism division, told reporters outside the court.

Ibrahim, who admitted making the bombs, grew up in Eritrea and came to the UK in 1990. He attempted to blow up a bus in Shoreditch, east London.

Police and intelligence agencies have faced criticism over the fact that he was able to lead the plot despite having come to their attention several times beforehand.

At various points in 2004, he was photographed by surveillance officers while on a camping trip in the Lake District, was arrested for distributing extremist Islamist literature and was stopped by Special Branch officers on his way to Pakistan.

Somali-born Omar tried to detonate his bomb on a tube train near Warren Street station, in central London. It was his north London flat that was used by the plotters as a base in which to make the bombs.

Mohammed, also originally from Somalia, claimed he had only been forced into the plot at the last minute.

He attempted to blow up a carriage on a tube train near Stockwell station, in south London, and was pictured on CCTV footage turning so that his bomb faced a woman and her nine-month-old son before trying to set it off.

Osman, who was born in Ethiopia and came to the UK via Italy, tried to detonate his bomb close to Shepherd's Bush station, in west London.

The four were arrested in the days and weeks following the attempted attacks, Ibrahim and Mohammed at the latter's west London flat, Omar in Birmingham and Osman in Italy.

    Four July 21 plotters jailed for life, G, 11.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2123749,00.html

1.15pm update

Jurors fail to reach verdicts on two 21/7 defendants

Tuesday July 10, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker, Sandra Laville and agencies

The jury deliberating the cases of the alleged July 21 bomb plotters was today discharged after failing to reach a verdict on the final two defendants.

The decision by the trial judge, Mr Justice Fulford QC, came during the eighth day of deliberations by the jury at Woolwich crown court in south-east London.

He asked prosecutors to decide by tomorrow whether they want to seek a retrial for Manfo Kwaku Asiedu and Adel Yahya.

Yesterday, the jury found Muktar Said Ibrahim, Yassin Omar, Ramzi Mohammed and Hussein Osman guilty of conspiracy to murder over the failed attack on three London underground trains and a bus.

The court heard that the plot aimed to mirror the carnage of two weeks earlier when on July 7 2005 four suicide bombers killed themselves and 52 other people on the capital's transport network.

Ibrahim, 29, of Stoke Newington, north London, Omar, 26, of New Southgate, north London, and 25-year-old Mohammed, of North Kensington, west London, were found guilty in unanimous verdicts.

Osman, 28, of no fixed address, was convicted later, shortly after the judge told the jury of nine women and three men that he would accept a majority verdict of 10-2.

The four will be sentenced tomorrow.

Dismissing the jury, Mr Justice Fulford praised their "patience, good humour and perseverance" over the course of the six-month trial and excused them from any future jury service.

"The fact you were unable to reach a verdict on two of the defendants does not in any way reflect badly on any of you," he said.

All six defendants had denied conspiracy to murder.

The prosecution alleged that Mr Asiedu, who arrived in the UK in 2003 from Ghana, was a fifth would-be bomber but dumped his device in parkland at Wormwood Scrubs, west London.

According to the prosecution, 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".

Mr Yahya was born in Ethiopia in 1982 and lived in Yemen before coming to live with an aunt and uncle in north London. He left the UK six weeks before the attacks to return to Ethiopia.

The court heard that the homemade hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour rucksack bombs carried by Ibrahim, Omar, Mohammed and Osman only misfired thanks to a combination of poor design, hot weather and luck.

The first of the four to strike was Mohammed, who tried to blow up a Northern line tube train near Oval station in south London. Less than 10 minutes later, Omar triggered his device on a northbound Victoria line train as it pulled into Warren Street station in central London.

Next, Ibrahim, identified as the plot ringleader, tried to blow himself up on a No 26 bus in Shoreditch, east London. Finally, Osman tried to blow up his rucksack bomb on a Hammersmith and City line train near Shepherd's Bush station in west London.

All four fled and were arrested in the subsequent days and weeks - Omar in Birmingham, Ibrahim and Mohammed at the latter's flat in west London, and Osman after being extradited from Italy.

Yesterday's convictions prompted questions as to how Ibrahim had slipped through the net of anti-terrorist police and MI5 despite being captured on surveillance photographs more than 12 months before the attempted attacks.

The jury was told that he may have attended the same training camp in Pakistan as Mohammed Siddique Khan, the ringleader of the July 7 attacks; the two were in the country at the same time in 2005.

The trial heard that the security services and the police had the ringleader on their radar at least a year before the failed bombings. In May 2004, Ibrahim encouraged his three friends to join him at a jihadi training camp in the Lake District that was subject to surveillance by anti-terrorist police.

In October that year Ibrahim was arrested in Oxford Street after scuffling with a policeman who intervened as he was handing out extremist literature. He was charged with a breach of public order and was due in court in December 2004. When he failed to turn up, an arrest warrant was issued which was outstanding in February 2005, five months before the July attacks.

In December 2004 Special Branch officers stopped him at Heathrow and questioned him for three hours before allowing him to board a plane to Islamabad. He and two associates were carrying thousands of pounds in cash, a military first aid kit and a manual on ballistics.

According to prosecutors, at the time he should have been in court Ibrahim was at a training camp in Pakistan learning how to carry out a suicide bombing in Britain.

    Jurors fail to reach verdicts on two 21/7 defendants, G, 10.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2122936,00.html

MP3 juror faces jail for contempt

Tuesday July 10, 2007
Guardian
Clare Dyer, legal editor

A Muslim woman juror who was arrested for apparently listening to an MP3 player under her hijab during a murder trial is facing jail for contempt of court. She is said to have used the traditional headscarf to hide headphones while ignoring vital evidence from a retired businessman who bludgeoned his disabled wife to death.

She was discharged from the jury and arrested last Wednesday, but a news blackout, imposed by the trial judge, was lifted yesterday after the husband was convicted at London's Blackfriars crown court. It emerged that the juror had been accused of contempt, which can carry an unlimited fine and indefinite imprisonment.

With 11 others, the woman, in her early 20s and unidentified for legal reasons, took an oath to try Alan Wicks "on the evidence" for allegedly bludgeoning his wife to death after 50 years of marriage.

Last Wednesday a defence lawyer thought she caught a glimpse of a wire under the woman's head covering. On several occasions the judge had thought he could hear the faintest "tinny music", but dismissed it as his imagination. Finally, a woman juror sent him a note, claiming her colleague had been listening to her MP3 player during the defendant's evidence.

The judge told her: "You are going to be discharged from this jury. You will play no further role." A police officer escorted her from court and confiscated the MP3 player. She was bailed until a hearing at Blackfriars crown court on July 23.

    MP3 juror faces jail for contempt, G, 10.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2122738,00.html

Three jailed over man imprisoned in shed

· Victim who had epilepsy was beaten and burned
· Body found in house after four-month ordeal

Tuesday July 10, 2007
Guardian
Helen Carter


Three people who locked a man who had epilepsy in a garden shed for four months were given lengthy prison terms yesterday after it emerged their victim was beaten, burned and humiliated over a minor debt. Kevin Davies, 29, was repeatedly assaulted by the trio, who held him in a shed in Bream, Gloucestershire, bolted from the outside, from May to September 2006. The trio fed him leftovers and scraps, such as potato peelings.

His body was found by paramedics on September 26 in the kitchen of David Lehane and Amanda Baggus's home. Tests revealed weedkiller in his body and extensive bruising and burns. His ribs and larynx were fractured. Burns covered 10% of his body. Baggus kept a diary in which she recorded the punishments, scornfully recording his cries for help.

They also filmed him in the shed, bullying him into saying he was staying voluntarily and was being treated well. In the video he seems frightened, emaciated and weak. Lehane, 35, and Baggus, 26, and their lodger Scott Andrews, 27, had been charged with murder, but the charge was dropped after experts could not rule out that epilepsy may have contributed to Mr Davies's death. However, it is unlikely it was caused by his medical condition.

The three pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Lehane and Baggus were given 10-year sentences at Bristol crown court by Mr Justice Gray. Andrews was given nine years. The judge said their actions had been "utterly inhumane". He said: "Since the death of his father in March 2006 his life is said to have lacked structure. He needed sympathetic treatment, but what you meted out to him over many weeks was the very opposite of that."

Ian Pringle, prosecuting, said Davies had been treated like an animal. "What emerged from the investigation into Kevin Davies's death was that he had effectively been held captive at the home of the defendants for a period of nearly four months," he said. "He had been abused for that period of time. He had been assaulted, he had been beaten and had effectively been kept like a dog in a locked garden shed at night. In short, the last few months of this man's life must have been utterly miserable and inhumane."

Mr Davies, who suffered from severe epilepsy, had been described as gullible, naive and vulnerable. He had known Lehane and Baggus for some years but had fallen out over a car crash. Baggus felt he owed her money and took his social security money while he was kept in the shed. In one diary entry she wrote: "He was playing up last nite, banging in the shed. So later that night both Scott and Dave hit Prick until quite late, cause Prick made a load of shouting."

Patrick Harrington, defending Lehane, said "things had got out of hand" but said it had been "an unsophisticated enterprise". He said their victim was homeless and an alcoholic and was grateful to be allowed to stay in the shed.

In a statement, Mr Davies's family said: "Although nothing can compensate us for Kevin's death we feel the sentences validates our faith in British justice."

Detective Chief Inspector Geoff Brookes described the trio's behaviour as extraordinary and bizarre. "Only they can say exactly what motivated them," he said.

The shed has been replaced by the new tenants of the house.

    Three jailed over man imprisoned in shed, G, 10.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2122474,00.html

5pm update

Four found guilty over July 21 bomb plot

Monday July 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker and agencies

Four men were today found guilty of an extreme Islamist plot to detonate bombs on tube trains and a bus in London on July 21 2005.

Muktar Said Ibrahim, Yassin Omar, Ramzi Mohammed and Hussein Osman were convicted of conspiracy to murder over the failed attack, which aimed to mirror the carnage of two weeks before when on July 7 four suicide bombers killed themselves and 52 other people on public transport around London.

Ibrahim, 29, of Stoke Newington, north London, Omar, 26, of New Southgate, north London and Mohammed, 25, of North Kensington, west London, were found guilty this morning in unanimous verdicts from the jury of nine women and three men at Woolwich crown court.

Osman, 28, of no fixed address, was convicted this afternoon after the trial judge, Mr Justice Fulford QC, told the jurors, who were on their seventh day of deliberations, that he would accept majority verdicts of 10-2 for the remaining defendants.

The jury will deliberate further tomorrow on the cases of the two other defendants facing the same charges - Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 34, of no fixed address, and 24-year-old Adel Yahya, of High Road, Tottenham, north London.

All six have denied conspiracy to murder. Today's verdicts followed six months of often dramatic testimony. The convicted men hoped to detonate hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour bombs on public transport.

None of the devices used on July 21 detonated properly and no one was injured, the court heard. According to prosecutors, the plan only failed at the last moment because of problems with the homemade explosives, hot weather, and to some extent, sheer "good fortune".

The trial heard that Ibrahim - described as the ringleader of the July 21 plot - had spent two months in Pakistan at the same time as Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the July 7 bombers.

The six accused of the July 21 plot claimed variously that their hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour rucksack devices had been intended as a hoax, that they had been duped into taking part, or that they had nothing to do with it.

The first of the three to strike on July 21 was Mohammed, who, wearing a top with New York written on it, boarded a Northern line train just after 12.30pm.

One piece of CCTV footage showed Mohammed, who was born in Somalia and moved to the UK with his family in 1998, turning his back on a mother and her nine-month-old son so the rucksack bomb was facing them before attempting to set it off.

After the device misfired, he was challenged by an off-duty firefighter and claimed the gelatinous substance leaking from his rucksack was bread.

Less than 10 minutes later, Omar - who was also born in Somalia, came to the UK in the early 1990s and was fostered for a time by a British family - triggered his device on a northbound Victoria line train as it pulled into Warren Street station in central London. It also misfired.

Afterwards he stopped two Muslim women in the street and asked for their help. The court heard that when one refused to take him home he asked: "What type of Muslim are you?"

Just after 1pm, Ibrahim - who grew up in what is now Eritrea before arriving in the UK in 1990 - tried to blow himself up on a No 26 bus in Shoreditch, east London, setting off his device at the back of the top deck.

Ibrahim told the trial that the devices were dummies and had been intended as a protest against the Iraq war. He had booby-trapped Omar's flat in New Southgate, north London, which was used as the bombmaking factory, the court also heard.

Osman tried to blow up his rucksack bomb on a Hammersmith and City line train near Shepherd's Bush station in west London.

After it misfired, he calmly walked through the train, which was on an above-ground section of track, and escaped through a nearby house. He was eventually arrested in Italy and extradited.

Osman was born Isaac Adus Hamdi in Ethiopia in 1978. He and his family fled to Italy in the 1980s before Osman and another brother came to the UK in 1996, where gained asylum by lying to the authorities that he was from Somalia.

Omar fled the capital disguised as a Muslim woman in a burka, the jury was told. The 1.83-metre (6ft) defendant was caught on CCTV footage carrying a light-coloured handbag after arriving at a coach station in Birmingham.

He was arrested at a house in the city on July 27, and the jury heard he was almost shot by armed police who found him standing in a bath wearing what they feared was a rucksack filled with explosives.

Two days after this, Ibrahim and Mohammed emerged from Mohammed's North Kensington flat wearing only their underpants after officers threw CS gas canisters inside.

The pair had armed themselves with a knife and mop handle spears to attack police but did not use them.

    Four found guilty over July 21 bomb plot, G, 9.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2122182,00.html

2pm update

Three found guilty over July 21 bomb plot

Monday July 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker and agencies

Three men were today found guilty of an extremist Islamist plot to detonate bombs on tube trains and a bus in London on July 21 2005.

Muktar Said Ibrahim, Yassin Omar and Ramzi Mohammed were found guilty of conspiracy to murder in unanimous verdicts.

As the verdicts were read out, Ibrahim, 29, of Stoke Newington, north London, closed his eyes and looked down at his hands. Omar, 26, of New Southgate, north London, and Mohammed, 25, of North Kensington, west London, both stared at the judge.

The jury of nine women and three men at Woolwich crown court retired to continue deliberating the cases of the three other defendants facing the same charges - Hussain Osman, 28, of no fixed address, Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 34, of no fixed address, and 24-year-old Adel Yahya, of High Road, Tottenham, north London.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Fulford QC, told the jurors, who are on their seventh day of deliberations, that he would accept majority verdicts of 10-2 for the remaining defendants.

The verdicts followed six months of often dramatic testimony about an alleged failed plot to kill and injure hundreds on the capital's transport network.

The convicted men hoped to detonate hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour bombs on public transport, mirroring the attacks two weeks earlier on July 7, when four suicide bombers detonated bombs on three tube trains and a bus, killing themselves and 52 others.

None of the devices used on July 21 detonated properly and no one was injured, the court heard. According to prosecutors, the plan only failed at the last moment because of problems with the homemade explosives, hot weather, and to some extent, sheer "good fortune".

The trial heard that Ibrahim - described as the ringleader of the July 21 plot - had spent two months in Pakistan at the same time as Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the July 7 bombers.

All six accused of the July 21 plot denied conspiracy to murder, claiming variously that their hydrogen peroxide and chapatti flour rucksack devices had been intended as a hoax, that they had been duped into taking part, or that they had nothing to do with it.

The first of the three to strike on July 21 was Mohammed, who, wearing a top with New York written on it, boarded a Northern line train just after 12.30pm.

One piece of CCTV footage showed him turning his back on a mother and her nine-month-old son so the rucksack bomb was facing them before attempting to set it off.

After the device failed to work properly, Mohammed was challenged by an off-duty firefighter and claimed the gelatinous substance leaking from his rucksack was bread.

Less than 10 minutes later, Omar detonated his device on a northbound Victoria line train as it pulled into Warren Street station in central London. It also failed to explode fully.

Afterwards he stopped two Muslim women in the street and asked for their help. The court heard that when one refused to take him home, he asked: "What type of Muslim are you?"

Just after 1pm, Ibrahim tried to blow himself up on a No 26 bus in Shoreditch, east London, setting off his device at the back of the top deck.

Ibrahim told the trial that the devices were dummies and had been intended as a protest against the Iraq war.

He booby trapped a flat in New Southgate, north London, that was used as the bombmaking factory, the court also heard.

Omar fled the capital disguised as a Muslim woman in a burka, the jury was told.

The 1.83 metre (6ft) defendant was seen on CCTV footage carrying a light-coloured handbag after arriving at a coach station in Birmingham.

He was arrested at a house in the city on July 27, and the jury heard he was almost shot by armed police who found him standing in a bath wearing what they feared was a rucksack filled with explosives.

Two days after this, Ibrahim and Mohammed emerged from the New Southgate flat wearing only their underpants after officers threw CS gas canisters inside.

They had armed themselves with homemade kitchen knife and mop handle spears to attack police, but never used them.

    Three found guilty over July 21 bomb plot, G, 9.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2122182,00.html

3pm

'Internet jihadist' jailed for 10 years

Thursday July 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Oliver and agencies

A man described as the "godfather of cyber-terrorism for al-Qaida" and two of his associates were today given prison sentences totalling 24 years.

The three were sentenced at Woolwich crown court after pleading guilty to inciting people to commit murder through their extremist websites. They had all changed their pleas earlier this week, two months into the trial.

The case is the first successful prosecution based entirely on the distribution of extremist material on the internet.

Moroccan-born computer expert Younis Tsouli, the ringleader, who ran a site that regularly featured beheadings, was imprisoned for 10 years.

For nearly two years until his arrest in October 2005, Tsouli, 23, was credited with transforming the internet into a sophisticated multimedia propaganda and recruiting machine for jihadists.

His skill made him the main distributor of terrorist material from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's group, al-Qaida in Iraq.

He uploaded guides to building suicide vests and dubbed himself the "jihadist James Bond", using the online ID "irhabi007", which includes the Arabic word for terrorist.

One post on the site, which referred to the July 7 2005 London bombings in which 52 people were murdered, said: "From the moment the infidels cry, I laugh."

On one Arab language message board, Tsouli posted CIA explosive manuals and US navy seal guides on sniper training. In May 2004, a video of the beheading of the US contract worker Nicholas Berg by a terrorist who was thought to be Zarqawi was posted by Tsouli. It was downloaded 500,000 times in the first 24 hours.

Co-defendant Tariq Al-Daour, who was also involved in a £1.8m fraud, was jailed for six-and-a-half years.

The third man in the dock, Waseem Mughal, was given a seven-and-a-half-year sentence.

Earlier this week, all three pleaded guilty to inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, which would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute murder.

Passing sentence today, Mr Justice Openshaw described the men as engaging in "cyber jihad", encouraging others to kill non-believers. "It would seem that internet websites have become an effective means of communicating such ideas," the judge said.

He added, however, that none of the three had carried out violent acts themselves. Referring to Tsouli, Judge Openshaw said: "He came no closer to a bomb or a firearm than a computer keyboard."

The judge said Tsouli should be deported back to Morocco after serving his sentence. He had come to the UK in 2001 with his family and had studied information technology and computer technology at Westminster College of Computing. Two months before his arrest he was granted indefinite leave to remain.

Mughal, a biochemistry graduate from the University of Leicester, ran the website of the university's Islamic society. Daour became a British citizen in May 2004 and was planning to study law.

Tsouli's downfall came in the autumn of 2005 when Bosnian police in Sarajevo arrested Mirsad Bektasevic, a 19-year-old Swedish citizen, and Cesur Abdulkadir, an 18-year-old Turkish national, on suspicion of plotting a terrorist attack.

Mobile phone records led to arrests in the US, Canada, Denmark and the UK, including of Tsouli and his two co-defendants.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of the Metropolitan police's counter terrorism command, said: "Detectives were faced with an enormous challenge - to decode and decipher a staggering quantity of computer data and websites. They should be justly proud of their efforts in this case."

Mr Clarke went on: "Tsouli, Mughal and Daour used stolen identities, false credit card details and hidden chatroom forums. Their terrorist tradecraft was sophisticated, but nevertheless defeated by this investigation."

    'Internet jihadist' jailed for 10 years, G, 5.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2119590,00.html

1.15pm

Man guilty of inciting murder at cartoon protest

Thursday July 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker and agencies

A man who called for British troops to be brought back from Iraq in body bags at a demonstration against cartoons said to be offensive to Islam was today found guilty of inciting murder.

Mizanur Rahman, a 24-year-old web designer from north London, is one of four people convicted of various charges following a protest near the Danish embassy, in central London, last February.

It was organised following the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad - including one showing him as a terrorist - in a Danish newspaper. The cartoons were reprinted around Europe.

The Old Bailey jury was shown a film of Rahman using a microphone to tell the 300-strong crowd: "We want to see them [British troops] coming home in body bags. We want to see their blood running in the streets of Baghdad.

"We want to see the mujahideen shoot down their planes the way we shoot down birds, we want to see their tanks burn in the way we burn their flags."

Rahman also had placards calling for the annihilation and beheading of those who insulted Islam, the court was told.

"He incited or encouraged others to murder in the name of religion," Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said.

Rahman denied soliciting the murder of people who did not believe in or insulted Islam, as well as members of the British and US military and Danish, Spanish and French nationals.

He said microphone had been thrust into his hand and he had simply begun to echo chants around him.

Today's verdict came after a retrial. In November last year, Rahman was found guilty of stirring up racial hatred, but the jury could not reach a decision on incitement to murder.

Following the verdict, the court was told he had previous convictions for offences including causing criminal damage by covering up naked women on advertising posters and having a rice flail martial arts weapon in his car.

He was remanded in custody until July 18 for sentence along with three other men already convicted of offences during the same demonstration.

Umran Javed, a 27-year-old from Birmingham, was found guilty of soliciting murder and stirring up racial hatred in January. Javed, said to be one of the leaders of the demonstration, was shown on a police video shouting: "Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA."

During his trial, he said he regretted saying those words, but added that they were not meant to be a literal incitement. "I understand the implications they have, but they were just slogans, soundbites," he added. "I did not want to see Denmark and the USA being bombed."

In March, another man said to have led the protest, 24-year-old Abdul Muhid, from east London, was found guilty of two charges of soliciting murder.

A prominent member of the Saviour Sect, which is linked to the radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, he led a crowd chanting: "Bomb, bomb the UK" and produced placards with slogans calling for the annihilation of "those who insult Islam", the Old Bailey heard.

In February, 31-year-old BT engineer Abdul Saleem, also from east London, was convicted of stirring up race hate after being filmed chanting: "7/7 on its way".

    Man guilty of inciting murder at cartoon protest, G, 5.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,2119522,00.html

4pm update

Damilola killers lose appeal over sentences

Wednesday July 4, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker and agencies

Two brothers convicted of killing the schoolboy Damilola Taylor on a south London housing estate lost an appeal against their eight-year youth custody sentences today.

A panel of three appeal court judges had earlier rejected a separate attempt by one of them, 18-year-old Danny Preddie, to have his "unsafe" conviction overturned.

Lord Justice Latham said the sentences imposed on Preddie and his 19-year-old brother, Ricky, last August for the manslaughter of Damilola were appropriate given the seriousness of the crime.

He said the courts had to send out the message that "violence of this sort will be punished severely, and that will be the case even where the offenders are young".

This involved a need to "impose sentences which have a significant element of deterrence", he added, saying there was "no other way that the courts can reflect the need to ensure the streets of this country are as safe as possible".

The brothers - who lived near Damilola on the North Peckham estate - denied killing the 10-year-old by jabbing his leg with a broken beer bottle in November 2000. They were 12 and 13 at the time of the killing.

They were convicted following a retrial. An earlier trial had cleared them of murder and assault with intent to rob, but the jury could not reach a verdict on manslaughter.

Nigerian-born Damilola, who had only been in Britain for a few months, bled to death in a stairwell as local workmen tried to save his life.

A number of youths, including the Preddies, were arrested after the killing. Four were cleared at a trial in 2002, and Hassan Jihad, 20, was cleared in April 2006.

The Preddies were not charged until 2005 after new forensic evidence that had been missed at the time was discovered.

Danny Preddie's lawyer, Orlando Pownall QC, told today's hearing that the eventual manslaughter conviction was "unsafe" and that it had been "unfair" to try him at all in 2006.

"The trial process itself was incapable of remedying the serious and unfair disadvantage suffered by Danny Preddie in the presentation of his case, and the investigation on his behalf of matters relevant to his defence, as a result of the delay in bringing this prosecution," he said.

"No direction from the trial judge, however full and thoughtful, could enable the jury to evaluate so long after the events the highly complex issues in this case properly and fairly to the defendant. It was an impossible task."

However, Lord Justice Latham ruled the trial jury was "entitled to be satisfied by the forensic evidence" and other evidence. The way Preddie's trial had been conducted "was capable of dealing properly with any prejudice that might arise", he said.

    Damilola killers lose appeal over sentences, G, 4.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2118314,00.html

1.45pm

Man admits using internet to urge jihad

Wednesday July 4, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A third British-based man today admitted using the internet to spread extremist propaganda and urge Muslims to wage international holy war.

Tariq Al-Daour, of Bayswater, west London, admitted inciting people to commit terrorism against "kuffars" - non-believers - in the UK and abroad, Woolwich crown court heard.

The court, in south-east London, was told that 21-year-old Al-Daour, Younes Tsouli and Waseem Mughal had close links with al-Qaida in Iraq and believed there was a "global conspiracy" to wipe out Islam.

The three - described as "intelligent" and "adept" with computers - spent at least a year trying to encourage people to follow the extreme ideology of Osama bin Laden via email and radical websites.

Films of hostages and beheadings were found among their belongings, including footage of Briton Ken Bigley pleading for his life and Americans Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl being killed, the jury heard.

On Monday, Moroccan-born Tsouli, 23, of Shepherd's Bush, west London, and British-born Mughal, 24, of Chatham, Kent, admitted the same charge of inciting terrorism "wholly or partly" outside the UK by using Islamist websites.

The trio's guilty pleas came two months into their trial, and they also admitted conspiring together and with others to defraud banks, credit card companies and charge card companies.

When police raided their homes, they seized computers, notebooks and digital storage media containing material that would have stood tens of thousands of feet high if printed out and piled up.

Al-Daour, who was born in the United Arab Emirates, had CDs containing instructions for making explosives and poisons including a recipe for creating a rotten meat toxin that is "the most toxic substance known to man" in its pure form, the court was told.

Officers also discovered a leaflet on how to use a rocket-propelled grenade and pages from The Book of Jihad in a Sainsbury's carrier bag at his address, along with a video about the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York.

When Al-Daour was asked what he would do with £1m during one online conversation, he said: "Sponsor terrorist attacks, become the new Osama [Bin Laden]," the jury heard.

In another conversation, he said suicide bombings were permissible but he did not like them unless they killed many people because "a Muslim life is worth more than that".

Tsouli used the online tag irhabi007 - a combination of the Arabic word for terrorist and the codename of James Bond. In one exchange with Mughal, he said "AQ" (al-Qaida) had asked him to translate their official ebook into English, the court was told.

Known as Thurwat al-Sanam, or The Tip of the Camel's Hump, it is said to expound jihad as the pinnacle of Islam.

Police found a presentation entitled The Illustrated Booby Trapping Course on Tsouli's laptop, as well as a film showing how to make a suicide vest on a CD at Mughal's address.

The judge, Mr Justice Openshaw, directed the jury of eight women and four men to return formal guilty verdicts against Al-Daour in light of his pleas.

He discharged them from returning verdicts on the other charges he faced. The three men will be sentenced tomorrow.

    Man admits using internet to urge jihad, G, 4.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2118309,00.html

3.45pm

Teenager found guilty of Kiyan Prince stabbing murder

Monday July 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
David Batty and agencies

A 17-year-old boy was today convicted at the Old Bailey of murdering talented young footballer Kiyan Prince in May last year.

Kiyan, 15, was stabbed through the heart outside the gates of the London Academy school in Edgware, north London, after a playground fight turned fatal.

The young footballer, who was on the Queens Park Rangers youth team, had intervened in the dispute between his friend and the defendant, Hannad Hasan, who was then 16.

Hasan, of Colindale, north London, got Kiyan in a headlock and stabbed him with a penknife.

Hasan had denied murdering Kiyan but admitted manslaughter. The prosecution did not accept his plea to the lesser charge and he was tried for murder.

A first jury could not agree on a verdict. A retrial was held but abandoned two days after the jury retired in December last year because Kiyan's father, Mark Prince, approached a woman juror on her way home.

Today, at the conclusion of a third trial, the defendant was found guilty of murder by a majority of 11 to one after three days of deliberation.

Hasan claimed the stabbing was an accident, saying the knife he used was "a little toy".

He told police that he had been trying to poke Kiyan in the arm - to give him "just a little scratch there but it went deep in ... because I never used a knife before".

Hasan had been in trouble at his school for assaulting pupils and had been suspended six days earlier after urinating in front of a teacher.

Less the two weeks before the stabbing Hasan had allegedly threatened to "shank" (stab) a girl during a trivial dispute over a bus seat. No charges were laid but witnesses to the bus incident came forward after they heard about Kiyan's killing.

The jury at the first trial was not told of Hasan's previous violent outbursts. The judge at that trial criticised what he termed the prosecution's "catastrophic" failure to give defence counsel sufficient notice of their intention to introduce evidence of the alleged bus incident. That failure led to the evidence being excluded and, as a result, the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan police have launched a joint review of the prosecution.

Jaswant Narwal, district crown prosecutor at the Old Bailey trials unit, said: "As well as the deep loss felt by Kiyan's parents, this senseless knife killing has shaken an entire school and community.

"Knives, including penknives, are not toys and we prosecuted for murder as we would if a gun had been used. No child should live with the risk of seeing their friends frightened, wounded or killed and certainly not outside their own school.

"We thank the Prince family for their determination to follow us through these trials and also the pupils and teacher from the London Academy who bravely gave evidence a third time."

Kiyan had been tipped as a potential England player and was nicknamed "the bullet" because of his speed on the football pitch.

Joe Gallen, head of youth development at QPR, said he signed Kiyan up after watching him play for just five minutes. He compared him to England striker Wayne Rooney in the way he could lift his team by his presence.

At Kiyan's funeral his father, a youth worker and former professional boxer, told the congregation his son was a "role model".

    Teenager found guilty of Kiyan Prince stabbing murder, G, 2.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2116843,00.html

1.45pm update

Uncle jailed for life over toddler rape and murder

Monday July 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

The uncle of two-year-old Casey Leigh Mullen was today jailed for life after admitting he raped and killed her.

Michael Mullen, 21, was told he would serve a minimum of 35 years in jail after he pleaded guilty to the crimes at Leeds crown court.

Mr Justice Simon said Mullen was "a very dangerous man capable of lethal and violent sexual crimes against children". The judge added that it was unclear if there would ever be a time when Mullen was not a threat.

Mullen was arrested after the toddler was found in a pool of blood at her home in Oak Tree Crescent, Gipton, Leeds.

A postmortem examination showed the toddler died from compression of the neck.

The judge said: "At about 7.45pm on Sunday February 11 this year after an afternoon of drinking you arrived with your brother at Oak Tree Crescent. At some stage you went upstairs alone and you entered the bedroom of Casey Leigh Mullen. There you raped her and then killed her.

"Those bare outlines are dreadful enough, but what is particularly horrifying about this crime is that she was your niece and she was a child of two years and two months.

"The strong likelihood is that you covered her face with your hand while you were raping her. You then strangled her with a ligature, which you applied to her neck for not less than 30 seconds. The rape and murder of this little girl by someone she trusted and loved were appalling crimes."

Mr Justice Simon said Mullen was two and a half times over the legal alcohol limit for driving at the time of the crime and noted that this could have affected his behaviour.

Mullen, of Lawrence Road, Leeds, has been remanded in custody since his first appearance at Leeds magistrates court in February.

The court heard how police found an image of Casey, naked from the waist down, on Mullen's phone.

Police also found sexual images of children on his computer, including one which involved sadism, downloaded between October 2006 and February.

The judge said: "Police investigations have shown that you had used your computer to download indecent images of children and images of sexual abuse of children. It's clear that these offences were aggravated by strong paedophilic urges."

Psychiatric reports revealed that Mullen fell within the normal range of IQ and did not have a mental illness. But reports also said he had a psychiatric disorder which was not treatable.

The judge added: "How and why you came to commit these crimes against Casey, who would have felt safe and secure in your presence, is beyond all understanding."

Casey was discovered by her mother, Samantha Canham, 21, at their home at around 9.30pm on February 11.

The child lived in a rented house with her mother, her 20-year-old father, David Mullen, and her three-year-old brother.

A neighbour and family friend Sarah Pringle, 22, described at the time how she went to the house after hearing a commotion.

She found Casey's mother screaming hysterically and the little girl covered in blood. She tried to revive Casey as blood poured from the child's ears and nose.

Police and paramedics arrived and Casey was brought out of the house as anxious neighbours looked on.

The incident sent shockwaves through the tight-knit community, where residents were devastated by the loss of a "lovely little girl", who was "always smiling".

Casey's parents had moved into the house around 14 months before the attack. Near neighbours of the family said they called Casey "Smiley" because she was such a friendly, happy child.

After the hearing concluded, Casey's parents issued a statement expressing their relief at the sentence.

It said: "We have some very happy memories of Casey Leigh and she will always be in our thoughts and in our hearts.

"She was a special little girl. We thank the good people of Leeds and particularly all those who sent us cards and letters. Those were a great comfort to us.

"We would also like to thank West Yorkshire Police for their hard work and dedication - we know at times it couldn't have been easy. We would now like to get on with our lives in peace and attempt to come to terms with the events of the last few months."

The senior investigating officer in the case, detective superintendent Steve Payne, said: "Casey Leigh Mullen lived a short life which was brought to a very brutal end by a man she should have been able to trust.

"The sentence given by the judge has ensured that Michael Mullen will remain behind bars for a very long time and will no longer present a danger to young children."

    Uncle jailed for life over toddler rape and murder, G, 2.7.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2116615,00.html

Greed, pure and simple - court told of gang's motive for £53m robbery

· Alleged kidnappers posed as police to snatch family
· Prosthetic disguises used to hide faces, jury hears

Wednesday June 27, 2007
Guardian
Duncan Campbell

The gang behind the largest robbery ever carried out in Britain was motivated by greed "almost beyond the dreams of avarice", an Old Bailey jury heard yesterday.

It involved the kidnap of a family, armed death threats, an inside man and the skilful use of professional prosthetics that allowed a gang to escape with £53m taken from the Securitas depot in Tonbridge, Kent, in February last year, the court was told. More than £30m has yet to be recovered.

The prosecuting counsel, Sir John Nutting QC, told the jury: "You may think that there are few things more terrifying than the invasion of home or workplace at the dead of night, by men dressed entirely in black, whose faces and heads are covered by masks with slits for eyes and mouths, brandishing deadly weapons and shouting that you will die if you do not do as you are told."

Seven men and one woman appeared in the dock charged with offences including conspiracy to commit kidnap and robbery and the handling of stolen goods in connection with the theft.

The court heard that five others, including two men in custody abroad, are expected to face a separate trial next year, and one man believed to have played a major part is still being sought.

Although none of the 14 Securitas staff at the depot when the robbers arrived was seriously injured, "the mental scars and the psychological effects still persist" for many of them, the court was told.

Gunpoint

The robbery began on the evening of February 21, 2006, when the manager of the depot, Colin Dixon, was stopped on the way to his Herne Bay home by two men dressed as police officers. He was taken at gunpoint to the isolated Elderden Farm in Staplehurst, which was owned by car salesman John Fowler, said Sir John.

He was interrogated at gunpoint about the depot's security arrangements.

Meanwhile, other men dressed as policemen arrived at the Dixon family home in Herne Bay, where they told Mrs Dixon her husband had been in a traffic accident and they would take her to hospital to see him. She was told to bring their child by those "whom she believed to be kindly policemen". Once in the car, however, one of the "policemen" produced a gun and she was taken to the same farm where her husband was being held.

"There is nothing courageous about kidnapping women and small children," said Sir John.

The robbers had another weapon in their arsenal: an inside man in the shape of Ermir Hysenaj, a 28-year-old Albanian, who had recently started work at Securitas, the court heard.

The final part of the plot was the application of the sort of prosthetics used in film and theatre to change someone's appearance. With the use of latex, silicone and false hair it was possible to make the kidnappers unrecognisable. Michelle Hogg, 32, a hairdresser, had trained in the application of prosthetics, the jury heard, and helped the men disguise themselves.

At the depot, the Securitas staff were handcuffed at gunpoint and the money was driven off in a seven-tonne lorry.

Sir John told the court the motive was "greed pure and simple; the lure of large sums of cash which would have permitted them to enjoy, for some time at least, if not for life, circumstances of luxury, ease and idleness". While some of the defendants were better off than others, all were "motivated by the prospect of dishonest gain almost beyond the dreams of avarice".

The jury was shown photos of all the defendants on screens as their alleged roles were outlined: Lea Rusha, 35, a roofer, from nearby Tunbridge Wells, was at the heart of the conspiracies, said Sir John, and linked to two caches where a total of £10m of the money was recovered. Plans of the depot and weapons were recovered at his home, the jury heard.

Stuart Royle, 48, a car salesman from Maidstone, allegedly helped provide vehicles. Jetmir Bucpapa, 26, an Albanian from Tonbridge, was the said to be the link to the "inside man", Emir Hysenaj, 28, from Crowborough, East Sussex. Bucpapa also allegedly helped with reconnaissance. Roger Coutts, 30, a garage owner from Welling, was allegedly linked to the plot. John Fowler, 59, from Staplehurst, allegedly allowed his farm to be used to hold the kidnap victims and as a "flop" where the spoils were divided up.

Keith Borer, 53, a signwriter from Maidstone, charged only with handling stolen goods, is said to have helped with changing the identity of the van used in the kidnap of Mrs Dixon and her child.

Michelle Hogg, 32, from Woolwich, admits applying the prosthetic masks but denies knowing what their intended use was, the court heard. The case, which is likely to last four months, continues.

    Greed, pure and simple - court told of gang's motive for £53m robbery, G, 27.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2112277,00.html

2.15pm update

Seven members of terror 'sleeper' cell jailed

Friday June 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker and agencies

Seven members of an al-Qaida-linked "sleeper" cell run by the convicted terrorist plotter Dhiren Barot were today jailed for a combined total of 136 years.

Mohammed Naveed Bhatti, 27, 31-year-old Junade Feroze, Mohammed Zia Ul Haq, 28, Abdul Aziz Jalil, 34, 23-year-old Omar Abdur Rehman, Qaisar Shaffi, 28 and Nadeem Tarmohammed, also 28, were central to Barot's plans to attack the UK and US, Woolwich crown court was told.

Last year, Barot was jailed for life for plotting to kill "hundreds if not thousands" of people in the UK and US using explosives-packed limousines and a "dirty" radiation bomb.

On Wednesday, Shaffi was found guilty of conspiracy to murder after a month-long trial. The other six defendants pleaded guilty in April to conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life.

Sentencing the men today, Mr Justice Butterfield described Barot as the main planner and "by some considerable distance the principal participant in the conspiracy".

"Each one of you was recruited by Barot and assisted him at his request," he said. "Anyone who chooses to participate in such a plan ... will receive little sympathy from the courts."

The judge said that while the defendants' families would suffer, this was "but a tiny fraction of the suffering that would have been experienced had your plans been translated into reality".

Jalil, from Luton, was jailed for 26 years and Feroze, from Blackburn, for 22 years. Bhatti, from Harrow, north-west London, and Tarmohamed, from Willesden, also in north-west London, were sentenced to 20 years each.

Ul Haq, from Paddington, west London, was given 18 years, while Rehman, from Bushey, Hertfordshire, and Shaffi, from Willesden, were given 15 years each.

After the sentences were passed, the home secretary, John Reid, said the plotters' aim had been "mass murder, mass panic and utter devastation".

"This case shows the importance of the excellent investigative work carried out by the police and our security service to ensure the safety of the public and the protection of UK interests," Mr Reid said.

When Barot was jailed in November, the same judge described him as a "determined and dedicated terrorist".

The 34-year-old - regarded as one of the most senior al-Qaida figures British security agencies have dealt with - wanted to kill thousands of people in a series of atrocities, his trial heard.

Jurors were told that Barot wanted to attack institutions such as the New York stock exchange and the World Bank.

In London, he planned to detonate limousines packed with explosives in underground car parks or set off a "dirty bomb" full of radioactive material.

Other plots included gassing the Heathrow Express train and bombing a tube train under the Thames so the river would flood the capital's underground system.

In spring 2004, the UK plans were completed and Barot went to Pakistan. The timing suggested the purpose of the trip was to present his proposals to the al-Qaida leadership for support and funding, his trial was told.

The Muslim convert was initially jailed for a minimum of 40 years, but this was reduced to 30 years on appeal last month.

The seven men jailed today gave Barot the support he needed to produce his plans, Johnathan Laidlaw, prosecuting, told Shaffi's trial.

"They were amongst his trusted few. They were his support team," he said, explaining that, as Barot "lived in the shadows", the others had helped him with accommodation, false identities, access to false bank accounts and other resources.

    Seven members of terror 'sleeper' cell jailed, G, 15.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2104060,00.html

The Bandar cover-up: who knew what, and when?

Attorney general urged to clarify role in concealing $1bn payments to prince

Saturday June 9, 2007
Guardian
David Leigh and Rob Evans

The government was last night fighting to contain the fallout over £1bn in payments to a Saudi prince as the attorney general came under renewed pressure to explain how much he knew about the affair.

While in public the government was issuing partial denials about its role in the controversy, in private there were desperate efforts to secure a new BAE £20bn arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

And any hopes that the furore could be halted were dashed last night when the Guardian learned that the world's anti-corruption organisation, the OECD, was poised to resume its own inquiry into why the British government suddenly abandoned its investigations into the £43bn al-Yamamah arms deal.

The OECD's anti-bribery panel will meet in Paris on June 19 and is expected to discuss the disclosures. When it travels to London, its inspectors are likely to ask ministers for a full explanation of their conduct.

Last night, the Liberal Democrat leader, Menzies Campbell, demanded to know the role of the attorney general in concealing from the OECD the payments of more than £1bn from BAE to Prince Bandar as part of the al-Yamamah contract.

The money was paid from an account at the Bank of England into accounts in Washington controlled by Prince Bandar. Details of the transfers were discovered by the Serious Fraud Office during the marathon investigation into BAE.

However, the SFO inquiry was suddenly halted late last year. Al-Yamamah, Britain's biggest ever arms deal, which was signed in 1985, involves the sale of Tornado fighter jets and Hawk aircraft.

The Guardian has this week published accusations that £30m a quarter - for at least 10 years - was paid into accounts controlled by Prince Bandar at the Riggs bank in Washington.

The attorney general yesterday categorically denied part of the Guardian story in the affair.

He said that he had not ordered British investigators to conceal the £1bn payments from the OECD.

The director of the SFO took responsibility for the decision to withhold information. In a statement, Robert Wardle said the decision was made by his own organisation "having regard to the need to protect national security".

The Guardian investigation has revealed that:

· The attorney general became aware of these payments because of the SFO inquiry into BAE corruption allegations.

· He recognised the vulnerability of the government to accusations of complicity over a long period in the secret payments.

· There is no dispute that, as reported by the Guardian, the fact of the payments was concealed from the OECD when it demanded explanations for the dropping of the SFO inquiry.

· UK government officials have been exposed as seeking to undermine the OECD process, and complaining that its Swiss chairman has been too outspoken.

· When, before publication, the Guardian originally asked the attorney general's office who was responsible for concealing the information from the OECD, the newspaper was told: "The information presented to the OECD bribery working group ... was prepared by AGO and SFO".

The AGO is the attorney general's office. Both departments report to Lord Goldsmith himself.

Last night, when Lord Goldsmith was asked if the concealment was done with his knowledge, he said he could not respond. His spokesman had previously said that full evidence had not been given to the OECD because of "national security" considerations. He also refused to discuss the allegations concerning the payments. "I am not going into the detail of any of the individual allegations," he said.

It also emerged yesterday that Des Browne, the defence secretary, held talks this week with the Saudi crown prince, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz - the father of Prince Bandar - to try to secure a £20bn arms deal for BAE Systems.

Sir Menzies said the attorney general had more questions to answer.

"If it is true that information about payments made to Prince Bandar was not given to the OECD, then that is an allegation of the utmost seriousness. It would be unsupportable for Britain to sign up to an international agreement on bribery and then fail to honour its obligations when an investigation comes too close to home."

    The Bandar cover-up: who knew what, and when?, G, 9.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2099077,00.html

Attorney-general knew of BAE and the £1bn. Then concealed it

Goldsmith hid secret money transfers from international anti-corruption organisation

Friday June 8, 2007
Guardian
David Leigh and Rob Evans

British investigators were ordered by the attorney-general Lord Goldsmith to conceal from international anti-bribery watchdogs the existence of payments totalling more than £1bn to a Saudi prince, the Guardian can disclose.

The money was paid into bank accounts controlled by Prince Bandar for his role in setting up BAE Systems with Britain's biggest ever arms deal. Details of the transfers to accounts in the US were discovered by officers from the Serious Fraud Office during its long-running investigation into BAE. But its inquiry was halted suddenly last December.

The Guardian has established that the attorney-general warned colleagues last year that "government complicity" in the payment of the sums was in danger of being revealed if the SFO probe was allowed to continue.

The abandonment of the inquiry caused an outcry which provoked the world's anti-corruption watchdog, the OECD, to launch its own investigation into the circumstances behind the decision.

But when OECD representatives sought to learn more about the background to the move at private meetings in January and March they were not given full disclosure by British officials, according to sources.

One insider with knowledge of the discussions said :"When the British officials gave their briefing they gave some details of the allegations, but it now transpires, not all of them."

A source close to the OECD added: "We suspected that the British were holding some secret back."

Sources close to the US justice department, whose members help to police the international anti-corruption treaty to which Britain is a signatory, confirmed that UK officials had not disclosed to the group that huge payments had gone to the prince in connection with the al-Yamamah arms deal.

In those confidential briefings at the OECD headquarters in Paris earlier this year, the UK said "national security" reasons were behind the decision to halt the SFO investigation into the case.

They claimed the SFO probe focused largely on old allegations of a slush fund operated by the BAE to provide treats for junior Saudi officials. Last night, a spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said full evidence had not been given to international panel members of the OECD anti-bribery working party at their meetings in order to protect "national security". He said: "The risk of causing such damage to national security had a bearing on the information voluntarily provided to the OECD".

He added: "We have not revealed information which could itself jeopardise our national security. For these purposes the OECD was effectively a public forum, as is illustrated by the fact that you claim to know what [the government] told them."

The Guardian's disclosure of British government complicity in the alleged payment of £1bn to Prince Bandar caused international concern yesterday, with Tony Blair taking a bullish position when questioned at the G8.

Standing beside George Bush, a close family friend of former US ambassador Prince Bandar, Mr Blair said it would have "wrecked" the relationship with Saudi Arabia if he had allowed investigations to go on. "This investigation, if it had gone ahead, would have involved the most serious allegations and investigation being made of the Saudi royal family," he said.

"My job is to give advice as to whether that is a sensible thing in circumstances where I don't believe the investigation would have led to anywhere except to the complete wreckage of a vital interest to our country."

Neither Mr Blair nor the Ministry of Defence made any attempt to deny the allegations revealed by the Guardian.

Prince Bandar last night issued a statement through his lawyers categorically denying that payments made to Riggs Bank in Washington "represented improper secret commissions or 'backhanders'".

He said the payments were made to Saudi ministry of defence and aviation (MODA) accounts of which he was a signatory. "Any monies paid out of those accounts were exclusively for purposes approved by MODA."

He said the accounts were regularly audited by the Saudi ministry of finance and BAE payments were "pursuant to the al-Yamamah contracts". He added: "At no stage have MODA or the Saudi Arabian ministry of finance identified any irregularities in the conduct of the accounts."

BAE last night issued a statement claiming there was full government complicity in any payments it had made with regard to the al-Yamamah deal, which was signed in 1985. The company said transactions were made with the "express approval" of the British government.

"All such payments made under those agreements were made with the express approval of both the Saudi and UK governments".

The fallout from yesterday's allegations may affect BAE's planned expansion in the US.

According to a source in Washington, BAE's $4.1bn (£2bn) proposed takeover of a major US defence company could be in jeopardy because of the disclosures.

The source, assessing the damage yesterday, predicted it will also be harder for BAE to pursue other plans for moves into the US defence market.

BAE could come under scrutiny from a number of US investigatory bodies, including the treasury, the justice department and congressional committees.

    Attorney-general knew of BAE and the £1bn. Then concealed it, G, 8.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2098232,00.html

12.45pm

Stag hunters found guilty of breaking ban

Thursday June 7, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Steven Morris

A professional huntsman and a volunteer helper today became the first members of a stag hunt to be found guilty of breaking the ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs.

Richard Down, an employee of the Quantock Staghounds in Somerset, and Adrian Pillivant, a lorry driver who was acting as a volunteer "whipper-in", were each ordered to pay a £500 fine and £1,000 costs.

A judge decided that the pair had used two pairs of staghounds to pursue red deer for almost three hours and over 10 miles.

Down, 44, and Pillivant, 36, had argued that they were using the dogs to flush deer out to three marksman - which can be exempt under the Hunting Act 2004 if the animals are shot dead "as soon as possible". They also insisted that they were hunting to control the deer, which compete with livestock for food.

But district judge David Parsons concluded that the purpose of the hunt was "sport and recreation, preserving a way of life that the participants and the defendants are not prepared to give up".

The judge, sitting in Bristol, added that the pair were "disingenuous in attempting to deceive me into believing they were exempt hunting". After the ruling, members of the tightly knit staghunting community expressed dismay and shock.

They said they had taken advice from the police, lawyers and the pro-hunting group the Countryside Alliance, which supported the defendants' case, and believed that the Quantock Staghounds and the two other stag hunts that operate in Somerset and Devon were operating within the law.

A spokesman for the Countryside Alliance said that in the light of the convictions the three hunts would have to consider carefully how to work in future.

The League Against Cruel Sports, which brought the prosecution, said the convictions showed that hunts were continuing to break the ban, which came into force two and a half years ago, and that the law, heavily criticised when it came into force, could work.

The League brought the first successful case against a huntsman, fox hunter Tony Wright, last year. The appeal against his conviction will be heard in Devon next month. The first prosecution against a fox hunt led by the police and Crown Prosecution Service is due to take place in the autumn.

On the day Down and Pillivant were judged to have broken the ban, the Quantock Staghounds met at Crowcombe, near Taunton. At least 17 riders, including children, followed the hunt, and others watched from quad bikes and four-wheel vehicles.

As monitors from the League watched, groups of deer were flushed out on three occasions over two and three quarter hours, and six animals shot. Four dogs were used, two at a time.

Supporters of Down and Pillivant said what they did should be viewed as separate events - deer were flushed and killed as soon as possible. But the judge said: "This was a continual act of hunting over a period of two and three quarter hours ... some of the deer found at the first flush were present at the final flush ... the dogs may well have been deployed in relay to use fresh dogs to chase the deer faster and harder, to tire them quicker and to compensate for having to hunt with only two dogs."

    Stag hunters found guilty of breaking ban, G, 7.6.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/hunt/Story/0,,2097635,00.html

3.30pm

Vigilante jailed for setting fire to innocent man

Friday May 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Fred Attewill and agencies

A "self-styled vigilante" who doused an innocent man in petrol and set fire to him because he thought he was a selling heroin was today jailed for 24 years.

Shane Wheelhouse suffered severe burns to his face, head, hands and arms after he was set alight by Andrew Taylor.

Taylor, 33, was found guilty of attempted murder following a week-long trial at Sheffield crown court. Judge Lawler QC described it as one of the worst cases of attempted murder he had seen in his career.

Mr Wheelhouse had been driving through Barnsley, South Yorkshire, on February 1 when he pulled over to the side of the road to take a call from his brother. When Taylor tapped on Mr Wheelhouse's window, he opened it, recognising Taylor as the partner of an acquaintance.

The court heard that Taylor said: "Are you selling smack down here?" He then began splashing petrol through the window, soaking the top half of Mr Wheelhouse's body so that it was dripping from his face.

Mr Wheelhouse shut the window and tried to pull away in first gear but was panicking and the clutch was faulty.

Taylor continued to empty the can over the blue Ford Mondeo before crouching at arm's length and starting the fire.

Mr Wheelhouse told the court how he was trapped in his car by his seatbelt as the flames burned his hands and face.

His seatbelt eventually burned through and Mr Wheelhouse leapt from the car, trying to pat out the fire.

Mr Wheelhouse suffered severe burns to his upper body and was taken to a specialist burns unit in Liverpool for treatment.

Taylor was arrested after he approached police officers at the scene at 3am on the morning after the incident.

Jailing Taylor, the judge said: "This case must be, and is in my fairly long experience, one of the very worst of its kind and requires a very long sentence.

"Your conduct acting as some self-styled vigilante was totally beyond the pale. On any view, this is at the top end of the scale of offences of attempted murder."

Speaking outside court, Mr Wheelhouse thanked the police and jury for their work.

He said: "[Taylor] has done what he has done and has got his sentence."

Asked about his feelings towards Taylor, he said: "I still have anger inside me. I haven't had time to just sit down and think about things. I want to try and put this behind me and get on with the rest of my life."

    Vigilante jailed for setting fire to innocent man, G, 25.5.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2088359,00.html

4.30pm update

Sex offender sentenced to life for student's murder

Friday May 4, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

A convicted sex offender was sentenced to a minimum of 21 years in prison today for raping and murdering Polish student Angelika Kluk and hiding her body in a church.

A jury at the high court in Edinburgh took three-and-a-half hours to convict Peter Tobin, 60, of the sexually-motivated killing last year.

After the verdict, Ms Kluk's sister Aneta shouted "thank you" to the jury.

Judge Lord Menzies told Tobin: "What you did to Angelika Kluk was inhuman ... you are, in my view, an evil man."

Ms Kluk, 23, suffered severe head injuries from a piece of wood and 16 stab wounds from a knife. Her bound and gagged body was then dumped beneath the floor of St Patrick's Church in the Anderston area of Glasgow.

The student from Skoczow near Krakow had been staying at the chapel house attached to the church and working as a cleaner to help finance her studies in Gdansk.

Police found her body - which had terrible injuries - on September 29 under the church's floor, near to the confession box.

Ms Kluk knew her killer as Pat McLaughlin, a genial handyman who helped out around the church.

In fact Peter Tobin had been jailed for 14 years in 1994 for a savage rape and sexual assault on two 14 and 15 year old girls, a case that the trial judge at the time called "the worst I have ever come across".

Tobin had been painting a garden shed in the chapel grounds with Ms Kluk the day before she was reported missing.

He had denied the attack on Ms Kluk and claimed she had consented to having sex with him. But the prosecution had argued he was responsible for an attack which it described as an "atrocity".

Lord Menzies told the killer he had never come across a "more tragic, more terrible" case. The judge said that after Tobin had beaten, raped and killed his victim he dragged her through the church and dumped her like she was "rubbish".

"All this shows utter contempt and disdain for the life of an innocent young woman with her whole life ahead of her," the judge said.

After his sentencing, Aneta Kluk said in a statement released by Strathclyde police: "My father and I are relieved that the man responsible for Angelika's death is now likely to spend the rest of his days behind bars. We would both like to thank all of the Scottish public for their support during this horrific time."

Tobin was also convicted of perverting the course of justice after giving police officers a false name and address and fleeing shortly after the killing. He was eventually arrested at a hospital in London while seeking treatment for cardiac trouble under a false name after Strathclyde police made a public appeal.

Tobin receives an automatic life sentence for murder and his 21-year tariff means that he must serve this amount of time before he can seek parole.

During the trial, the jury heard of Ms Kulk's complicated love life.

The church's former priest, Father Gerry Nugent claimed that he had a short sexual relationship with Ms Kluk in 2005, and admitted he was an alcoholic. Fr Nugent was sacked by the Archbishop of Glasgow before the trial began.

The jury of eight women and seven men also heard from married chauffer Martin Macaskill, 40, with whom Ms Kluk had been conducting a passionate affair of a few weeks when she died; Mr Macaskill's wife Anne had been aware of the relationship and was apparently prepared to tolerate it.

Tobin's defence QC Donald Findlay had argued in his closing speech that there was evidence to connect the priest in some way with the woman's death.

Mr Findlay said Fr Nugent and trial witness Matthew Spark-Egan seemed to have knowledge about where and how Ms Kluk's body was hidden.

Giving evidence, Fr Nugent repeatedly told the court: "I know nothing about her death or the circumstances of her death."

The judge reminded the jury that neither Fr Nugent nor Mr Spark-Egan were facing charges at this trial.

    Sex offender sentenced to life for student's murder, G, 4.5.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2072686,00.html

Man denies England prostitute murders

Tue May 1, 2007
1:28PM EDT
Reuters
By Michael Holden

IPSWICH (Reuters) - A forklift truck driver accused of murdering five women in eastern England in a case which has gripped Britain will go on trial next year after he denied the charges in court on Tuesday.

Steve Wright, 49, was arrested following one of the nation's biggest manhunts after five prostitutes were murdered in the space of 11 days in December last year.

The naked bodies of Gemma Adams, Tania Nicol, Anneli Alderton, Paula Clennell and Annette Nicholls were found dumped at rural locations around the town of Ipswich.

In a hearing at Ipswich Crown Court, Wright was asked how he pleaded to the charge of murder in the case of each of the five women. He replied each time in a clear firm voice: "Not guilty".

The judge, David Calvert-Smith, said the case would continue to be heard in Ipswich. The trial is scheduled to start on January 14 next year and is due to last up to eight weeks.

Wright is being held at Belmarsh high security prison in east London.

Detectives launched their murder investigation on December 2 when 25-year-old Adams' body was found in a stream. The body of 19-year-old Nicol -- last seen on October 30 and the first to be reported missing -- was discovered in the same stream on December 8.

The other three bodies were found over the next four days amid a media frenzy.

The local police chief said the murders of five separate women in such a short span of time was unprecedented in British criminal history.

    Man denies England prostitute murders, R, 1.5.2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL3063158620070501

4pm update

Fertiliser bomb plotters jailed for life

Monday April 30, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Peter Walker and agencies

Five British men with close links to the July 7 bombers were today jailed for life after being found guilty of a plot to set off a wave of fertiliser-based explosions around the country.

The judge, Sir Michael Astill, told Omar Khyam, 25, the plot ringleader, that he would serve a minimum of 20 years in jail. He warned all five they may spend the rest of their lives in prison.

"You have betrayed this country that has given you every opportunity," he said. "All of you may never be released," he said, while noting it was not "a foregone conclusion".

Condemning what he called the "preachers of hate who contaminate impressionable young minds", Sir Michael labelled Khyam, who boasted about links to al-Qaida, "ruthless, devious, artful and dangerous".

After the verdicts it emerged that police had monitored Khyam repeatedly in the company of two of the July 7 bombers more than a year before the London suicide explosions killed 52 people, but that officers failed to act on the information.

Khyam, from Crawley, West Sussex, was found guilty of conspiring to cause explosions likely to endanger life between January 1 2003 and March 31 2004, possessing 600kg of ammonium nitrate fertiliser for terrorist purposes, and possessing aluminium powder for terrorism.

Four other men were also found guilty on the first charge: Waheed Mahmood, 35, and Jawad Akbar, 23, also from Crawley; Anthony Garcia, 25, from Barkingside, east London; and Salahuddin Amin, 32, from Luton, Bedfordshire.

Garcia and Mahmood were sentenced to at least 20 years in prison; Akbar and Amin face a minimum of 17 and a half years.

Two other suspects, Nabeel Hussain and Shujah Mahmood, were found not guilty. Garcia was also found guilty of possessing the ammonium nitrate fertiliser but Hussein was cleared of the charge; Shujah Mahmood was found not guilty of possessing aluminium powder.

The plan involved using 600kg of ammonium nitrate fertiliser as the basis for bombs that could have killed hundreds of people, with Bluewater shopping centre in Kent and the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London designated as possible targets, the Old Bailey heard. The group also intended to hit gas and electricity supplies.

Police broke up the plot in 2004 after a major surveillance operation uncovered links between the guilty men and Islamist militants abroad, including al-Qaida.

As soon as the verdicts were returned at the Old Bailey, it emerged that security services watching Khyam had seen him liaise closely with Mohammed Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the July 7 group. He also met another of the bombers, Shehzad Tanweer.

Relatives of some of those killed by Khan and his followers demanded to know why police did not act against Khan and Tanweer after they arrested Khyam and his six co-defendants in March 2004, a full 16 months before the July 7 blasts.

Khyam and Khan met at least four times in England while Khyam was under MI5 surveillance and in the final stages of his plotting. On one occasion agents even recorded the pair talking about terrorism. Khyam was seen meeting Tanweer three times.

However, police and intelligence officers regarded Khan and Tanweer as "peripheral" figures, and no action was taken against them even after Khyam and his co-conspirators were detained.

"The consequences of that level of incompetence were such that my son was killed. That is truly appalling," said Graham Foulkes, who lost his 22-year-old son, David, on July 7 2005.

"Could the bombings have been prevented? As a father who lost a son, I am drawn to that conclusion."

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats demanded a full inquiry into why the security agencies failed to use their knowledge to prevent the July 7 attacks.

But in a Commons statement, the home secretary, John Reid, rejected this, saying it would "divert the energies and efforts of so many in the security service and the police who are already stretched greatly in countering that present threat".

Jonathan Evans, who took over as director general of MI5 just over a week ago, issued a statement in which he denied the service had been "complacent", stressing that his organisation would "never have the capacity to investigate everyone who appears on the periphery of every operation".

"The attack on July 7 in London was a terrible event," he added. "The sense of disappointment felt across the service at not being able to prevent the attack, despite our efforts to prevent all such atrocities, will always be with us."

Details of the links to the July 7 pair were outlined in January last year, with the prosecution arguing that the information should be permitted as evidence. The judge, however, ruled that the men might not receive a fair trial if the connection were known.

According to police, Khyam wanted a series of bombs to go off at the same time or one after another on the same day.

One senior police source told the Press Association the plot was "the first time since 9/11 that we had seen a group of British people planning to commit mass murder". The source added: "The level of surveillance, the resources devoted to this were unprecedented. A lot of other policing activity had to stop in order to service this operation."

The British defendants, mostly students of Pakistani descent, grew up mainly in and around Crawley before becoming caught up in extremism. In most cases the men's paths to militancy started at fringe meetings at universities. They went on to attend terrorist training camps in Pakistan.

The five volunteered to fight in Afghanistan but were told they would be of more use to al-Qaida in Britain.

    Fertiliser bomb plotters jailed for life, G, 30.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2068824,00.html

4.30pm update

'Sadistic' foster mother jailed for 14 years

Thursday April 19, 2007
Staff and agencies
Guardian Unlimited


A foster mother who subjected three children in her care to a "horrifying catalogue of cruel and sadistic treatment" was jailed for 14 years today.

Eunice Spry, 62, from Gloucestershire, routinely beat, abused and starved children over a 19-year period, sometimes forcing sticks down their throats or making them eat their own vomit or rat excrement.

Judge Simon Darwall-Smith told the devout Jehovah's Witness that this was the worst case he had come across in 40 years.

Passing sentence, he said: "It's difficult for anyone to understand how any human being could have even contemplated what you did, let alone with the regularity and premeditation you employed."

As punishment for misbehaving, she would beat the children on the soles of their feet and force them to drink washing-up liquid and bleach.

Spry denied all the claims made against her and insisted the only physical punishment she ever used was "a smack on the bottom".

However, a jury at Bristol crown court convicted her last month of 26 charges, including unlawful wounding, cruelty to a person under 16, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, perverting the course of justice and witness intimidation.

Today, Spry, a slight figure in the dock, looked on impassively as she was sentenced.

Judge Darwall-Smith ordered her to pay costs of £80,000, which he said would mean she would have to sell at least one of her two properties in Gloucestershire. He also banned Spry from working with children for life.

The judge told her: "I could not fail to notice that during the five and a half weeks of the trial you showed no emotion even when the jury returned their guilty verdicts."

He said the children she had abused had "relied upon you as their sole carer and protector".

The offences took place in two of Spry's homes in Gloucestershire between 1986 and 2005.

During the trial, the three victims, known as A, B and C, all gave evidence describing how their daily routines were punctuated by random acts of bizarre and sadistic violence.

Victim A told the court how she was confined to a wheelchair by Spry for over three years, after being injured in a car crash in 2000.

She said Spry had tried to stop her from trying to walk again, in a cynical bid to maximise the compensation payout she could get from insurers. The woman, now aged 21, eventually decided herself to walk again, and fled the home on the same day.

Victim B, also now 21, told how her foster mother would pull her hair and shove her face in her pet dog's faeces as punishment.

Victim C, now 18, described how his foster mother held his hand down on a hot electric hob until it was left looking like a "gooey mess". He said he had been force-fed so much washing-up liquid by Spry that he could now differentiate between the brands on taste alone.

The children were made to eat lard and if they were sick, would be forced to eat what they had thrown up.

Spry was able to conceal her reign of abuse as the children were home-taught and not sent to school. She also covered her tracks by forbidding them to be examined on their own by doctors or dentists.

The abuse was finally discovered after another Jehovah's Witness secretly confronted victim A about marks to her head, caused when Spry rubbed sandpaper over her face.

Today, during the mitigation section of the sentencing hearing, Nigel Mitchell, for Spry, claimed that despite the "unpleasantness and violence ... there were also periods of happiness" for the children.

She said Spry had shown love towards the children who had been taken on "canal trips on the barge, trips to Florida, the Florida Keys, Disney".

Mr Mitchell also revealed that Spry had needed protection in prison following her convictions and it was a "particularly unpleasant" place for her.

Later, Dan Norris, the Labour MP for Wansdyke, which covers parts of South Gloucestershire, welcomed the sentencing. He said: "Mrs Spry will not, you can be satisfied, reoffend. She will not be in charge of children and looking after children again."

    'Sadistic' foster mother jailed for 14 years, G, 19.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2061244,00.html

Terror and the law


Friday April 6, 2007
The Guardian
Leader

Any investigation into terrorism must necessarily be secretive and, at times, intrusive - but that is no reason why it should lapse into illegality. Two examples this week have shown the challenge. The more reassuring one came yesterday, when charges were brought against three men in connection to the July 7 attacks. Peter Clarke, the head of the Met's anti-terrorism branch, said that the case had been assembled from "a complicated jigsaw with thousands of pieces". The investigation was carried out under British law, and the cases will be heard in a British court.

The same cannot be said of the other investigation highlighted this week. The Guardian's report of an MI5 attempt to recruit Jamil el-Banna, a British resident suspected of knowing al-Qaida activists, reveals an inquiry that began with a degree of subtlety but which rapidly descended into crude injustice, with his rendition to Guantánamo Bay, where he is still held.

The circumstances in which Mr el-Banna and another British resident, Bisher al-Rawi - released a week ago today - were snatched during a visit to Gambia, are unclear. To varying degrees, the British security and intelligence services, Gambia and the US share responsibility. What is obvious is that Britain fell far short of the moral, if not legal, duty a country has to protect its residents, even if they (unlike their families) do not hold British citizenship.

The MI5 document printed by the Guardian describes a visit to Mr el-Banna's home in October 2002. The agent, who introduces himself as being from the "mukhaberaat", or security services, reports on a conversation which appeared to be relaxed, frank and inconclusive. He offered Mr el-Banna - who denied any involvement in extremist activity - a choice. "He could continue with his current life" or, if he co-operated with MI5, start a new one with "a new identity, new nationality, money".

As a proposal it reads like something out of Le Carre, but what followed would have shocked even George Smiley. Far from being left alone, or given time, Mr el-Banna has spent almost five years being held without charge in a camp described by Lord Falconer as "a shocking affront to democracy" and by a new Amnesty International report as offering "extreme isolation and sensory deprivation". Nine men with a claim to British residency, including Mr el-Banna, remain there. There is no proper process for assessing and releasing them; Britain has turned down a possible US offer to return the nine, if they are supervised. The government condemns Guantánamo in public but seems content to indulge the US in its extreme abuse of liberty and justice - the values which should underpin its response to terrorism.

    Terror and the law, G, 6.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2051333,00.html

3.45pm update

Three men charged with July 7 conspiracy

Thursday April 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Oliver


Three men have been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions in connection with the July 7 suicide bombings in London, Scotland Yard said today.

In a statement, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, of the Metropolitan police, said the three men who had been charged were those who had been detained on March 22.

Sadeer Saleem, 26, Mohammed Shakil, 30, and Waheed Ali, 23, who was previously known as Shipon or Chipon Ullah, are accused of conspiring with the four 7/7 suicide bombers.

Susan Hemming, head of the counter terrorism division of the Crown Prosecution Service, said the men had been charged "that between November 1 2004 and June 29 2005 they unlawfully and maliciously conspired" with the London bombers and others "to cause explosions on the Transport for London system and/or tourist attractions in London".

She added: "The allegation is that they were involved in reconnaissance and planning for a plot with those ultimately responsible for the bombings on the 7 July before the plan was finalised."

The decision to charge them had been taken this morning, she said, adding that the investigation had been "extensive and difficult". The three men were due to make an initial court appearance on Saturday.

They are the first to be charged in connection with the attacks which killed 52 people and injured more than 960.

Mr Clarke told reporters at New Scotland Yard that all three of the men were from Beeston, Leeds; Mr Ali had most recently being living in Tower Hamlets, east London. Beeston was home to three of the four suicide bombers, who targeted three Tube trains and a bus in the 2005 attacks.

Mr Clarke said officers had decided it was time to arrest the three suspects because two of them, Mr Ali and Mr Shakil, were about to leave the country two weeks ago from Manchester airport. Mr Saleem was arrested in Beeston.

Mr Clarke, head of the Met's counter-terrorism command, said that he knew "as a fact" that other people "had knowledge" of the plot and said he understood some had "real concerns about the consequences of telling us what you know".

He added: "I also know that some of you have been actively dissuaded from speaking to us. Surely this must stop. The victims of the attacks, and those who will become victims of terrorism in the future, deserve your co-operation and support."

Speaking of the suspects charged today, he said: "We need to know more about their movements, meetings and travel. Who did they meet? Where did they go? But as well as this, who else knew about what was happening? We will find out, it is only a matter of time. It is highly likely that in due course there will be further arrests."

He said that the 21-month investigation into the attacks - the worst on British soil - had been painstaking and detailed and that their aim had been to find "every clue and lead, however minute".

"Our aim was quite simple," he told reporters, "To find out not only who was responsible for setting off the bombs, but also who else was involved. As I said in July 2005, we needed to find out who else knew what was going to happen on July 7. Who encouraged the bombers? Who supported them? Who helped them?"

He said there were still gaps in police knowledge about the bombers, Mohammed Siddique Khan, Shezad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay, who all died in the blasts. Police wanted to know more about what they were doing in the weeks and months leading up to the attacks.

Mr Clarke said words could not convey the scale of the 7/7 investigation, which had involved some 19,000 leads and more than 15,000 statements being taken.

He said he knew that the news of the charges would have an impact on some people and "bring back awful memories of that terrible day". He went on: "For others there may be some relief that after such a length of time there is some visible progress in an investigation that, I hope for obvious reasons, has had to be conducted in secret."

Mr Clarke, who said he was not able to take questions from reporters, said the "relentless search" into every detail of the attacks was ongoing by the Metropolitan police and West Yorkshire police.

Ms Hemming said that care must be taken over the reporting of the charges. She told reporters: "These individuals are only accused of this offence 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."

    Three men charged with July 7 conspiracy, G, 5.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,2050966,00.html

UK's biggest cocaine dealer facing long sentence

Brian Wright, nicknamed The Milkman, flooded Britain with huge quantities of cocaine in the 90s. Today he was found guilty by a south London court of conspiracy to supply drugs. Ian Cobain reports

Monday April 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

He is a former borstal boy who became Britain's most successful cocaine smuggler, befriending the rich and the famous along the way. His friends in showbusiness declared him to be a warm and generous man, while his underworld drug dealing associates nicknamed him The Milkman - because he always delivered.

Brian Wright and his gang flooded the country with enormous quantities of cocaine throughout the 90s. In just one year, 1998, they are thought to have imported almost two tonnes of the drug, with the result, according to one Customs investigator, that "the cocaine was coming in faster than people could snort it".

A lifelong gambler, Wright used some of his drugs fortune to bribe jockeys and to arrange for racehorses to be doped. He would then bet £50,000 or more on rigged races, and use the proceeds as a facade to conceal the true source of his wealth.

Yet despite his notoriety, Wright felt able to taunt one Customs officer that he was prepared to "bet my £1m to your £1 coin" that he would never be successfully prosecuted.

Today Wright, 60, is facing a lengthy prison sentence after being found guilty at Woolwich Crown Court in London of conspiracy to evade prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug and conspiracy to supply drugs.

The trial followed an 11-year investigation, on four continents, codenamed Operation Extend. Among the 20 people convicted were Wright's son, son-in-law and several other members of his gang.

One, Paul Rogers, a former Daily Mirror journalist and expert yachtsman who has written several books about sailing, was jailed for 16 years. Wright's main south American contact, a 56-year-old Brazilian economist called Ronald Soares, received a 24-year term. Another person who was drawn onto the fringes of the gang was Bill Frost, a Times journalist who developed a cocaine addiction and died, aged 50, six years ago.

The Milkman was born in Dublin and moved to the UK at the age of 12, growing up in Kilburn, north west London. He was sent to borstal for two years after repeatedly truanting from school to work on market stalls.

He is thought to be largely illiterate and, by his own admission, has never paid a penny in tax in his life. Nor has he ever had a bank account, credit card or national insurance number. In his drug-smuggling heyday he would travel by boat or private jet, and Customs officers are unsure whether he has ever had a passport.

"On paper," one investigator said today, "he simply doesn't exist."

British Customs officers first came across The Milkman after their Irish counterparts seized 599 kilos of cocaine, with a street value of around £80m, from a converted trawler which docked at Cork in September 1996. Further investigations suggested the drugs were destined for Wright, who was already the subject of inquiries by the Jockey Club and Scotland Yard into race-fixing.

As the investigation developed, and more gang members and vessels came into the picture, Customs officers realised that Wright was using a modus operandi called "coopering", which has been employed by British smugglers for hundreds of years.

Consignments of cocaine would be despatched from south America or the Caribbean in a large yacht, which would sail to Devon or Cornwall. That vessel would almost inevitably attract the attention of Customs officers. Before reaching Britain, however, it would rendezvous over the horizon with a smaller yacht which appeared to be making a day trip from a south coast resort.

The drugs would be switched, or coopered, from one vessel to another. And while the first yacht was being searched on arrival in the UK, the second would be offloading the cocaine to waiting cars and vans.

Customs officers eventually identified six yachts which crossed the Atlantic this way, bringing three tonnes of cocaine between 1996 and 1998. Some of those eventually arrested admitted they had been running the Caribbean-Cornwall route as early as '93.

Wright was able to buy a large house in Frimley, Surrey, and a villa in Spain. He had a box at Ascot, rented a flat in Chelsea's luxurious King's Quay development, and conducted most of his business from the adjoining Conrad Hotel. Most of his wealth was held in cash, however, stashed in the lofts of relatives.

By this time, the big-spending Wright was close to a number of celebrities, who would laugh off any suggestion that he was a major international drug smuggler. Jim Davidson, the comedian, asked him to be godfather to his son. Mick Channon, the former Southampton and England footballer who became a successful racehorse trainer, agreed to be a character witness at his trial. Wright boasted that Frank Sinatra had also been a friend, and it is understood he rubbed shoulders with Clint Eastwood, Michael Caine and Jerry Hall. All were unaware of his criminal background.

Customs officers, meanwhile, say they had established that Wright was masterminding the biggest international drugs trafficking operation ever to target the UK. They had travelled to the Caribbean, Venezuela, Australia, South Africa, the USA and half-a-dozen European countries. Dozens of gang members and suppliers had been identified.

While most of the gang was rounded up in 1999, and subsequently jailed, Wright managed to flee from his villa in Spain and travel by plane to northern, Turkish-controlled Cyprus, which has no extradition arrangements with the UK. Fearing detention there, he travelled to Spain, where he was arrested in April 2005.

He was convicted after a trial which lasted almost three months.

UK's biggest cocaine dealer facing long sentence, G, 2.4.2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,2048550,00.html