CPS News Brief

No further action against one individual for conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office

Gregor McGill, a senior lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“The CPS has decided that no further action will be taken regarding a journalist whose full file was submitted to the CPS on 24 February 2015. After careful consideration it has been decided that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the charge of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

“This decision was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the Director’s Guidelines on Assessing the Public Interest in Cases Affecting the Media.

“Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.”

For editors:

The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

CPS decision to stop private prosecutions of doctors charged with abortion offences

In February 2012 Drs Sivaraman and Rajmohan were the subject of an undercover operation organised by The Daily Telegraph at various abortion clinics in England. The evidence obtained was passed to the police and, after an investigation, considered by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). It was concluded that in each case there was sufficient evidence of an abortion offence, although this was a finely balanced decision, but that it was not in the public interest to prosecute. On 5 September 2013 and, in more detail, on 7 October 2013 the CPS issued public statements explaining the decision making in these cases.

A person called Ms Hubert has now commenced private prosecutions against both doctors arising from the same undercover operation. She alleges that each doctor conspired with person(s) unknown to commit an offence contrary to section 59 of Offences Against the Person Act 1861, that is to procure or supply a poison or other noxious thing knowing that it was intended to be unlawfully used with intent to procure a miscarriage. Each defendant has asked the CPS to intervene and stop these prosecutions, as is their right under section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. We are bound to consider the case according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which, if not met, means we have no choice but to stop the case. In each case, in accordance with our legal guidance, the parties, including the private prosecutor have been asked to supply a complete set of papers relied on by them.

The evidence relied on by the private prosecutor in each case consists of a single unsigned and undated witness statement from Aisling Hubert. It seeks to produce other evidence in the case as exhibits, including extracts of the covert footage taken during each consultation and medical reports from three expert witnesses. It does not include any of the witness statements obtained during the original investigation, most notably those of the undercover journalist and the pregnant woman, known as E, who were present at the consultations.

Ms Hubert appears to have no personal knowledge of the events in question and so gives no admissible evidence about them. The only potentially admissible evidence is that contained in the extracts from the covert footage produced as exhibits. However, these are heavily edited and reduced in length. It may be argued that, the manner in which they have been edited means that they do not provide a fair and balanced representation of events at each consultation. Moreover, no witness who was actually present in the footage forms part of the private prosecutor’s case, witnesses who could perhaps be asked questions to put these extracts in their proper context during any trial. In these circumstances a judge is likely to exclude these extracts as evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. When considering the evidential stage of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, prosecutors must consider the admissibility of evidence.

Therefore, no admissible evidence has been served to support any offence and, applying our legal guidance, there is insufficient evidence put forward by the private prosecutor. Their case has no realistic prospect of conviction and these prosecutions should be taken over and stopped.

However, in order to give this case the fairest possible consideration, we have decided to consider the charge selected by the private prosecutor against all available evidence known to exist. This includes all the original case papers considered by the CPS in 2013, the full versions of the covert footage and the extra information Ms Hubert supplied.

Section 59 of the 1861 Act makes it an offence unlawfully "to supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman". It essentially criminalises the obtaining or supplying of a tool [here, as alleged, poison] which is intended for use to carry out a miscarriage unlawfully. This is not supported by the evidence. The evidence does not show that they supplied or procured poison, nor that they conspired with any other person to do so or even attempted to do so.

However, we widened our consideration and looked to see if there could be a prosecution for any abortion offence on the evidence known to exist. Having done so, we have come to the same conclusion as was met in 2013. As far as section 58 of the 1861 Act is concerned, “unlawfully using poison, instruments or other means with intent to procure a miscarriage”, there is just sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction but the public interest factors against a prosecution outweigh those in favour for the reasons previously given.

In reaching this decision we have taken into account the three medical reports obtained and exhibited by the private prosecutor since we last considered this matter. These consist of two reports from consultants in Gynaecology and Obstetrics and one from a General Practitioner, who only saw the limited material supplied by the private prosecutor. On a number of important matters there is a divergence of opinion between them. Some of their evidence supports the previous decision, for example:

• The two consultants relied upon both agree that a doctor does not need to see, let alone examine, the pregnant woman before an abortion is authorised by signing form HSA/1. This was an important factor in the consideration of Dr Rajmohan's case which is, again, supported by the expert evidence.
  
  
• An important consideration to both stages of the Code test was the fact that there was, at the time, no professional guidance as to how doctors should go about the comparative risk assessments. One consultant agrees with this as a fact but argues it should make no difference to the assessment of the case. Another suggests there was guidance from the Department of Health but only to the effect that "doctors are expected to have enough evidence of the woman's circumstances to justify that they were able to form a good faith opinion that the ground for termination exists" or else they risk committing an offence. The third doctor believed the guidance derived from every doctor's general duty to take a full history from the patient and collect, organise and interpret the data obtained. Such divergence of opinion serves only to highlight the difficulty. In reality, specific guidance was not issued by Department of Health until May 2014.

Conclusion: In relation to the private prosecutions, we have concluded that they should be taken over by the CPS and stopped. On the current evidence before the court, there is in our judgement, insufficient evidence to form a realistic prospect of conviction. Taking into account all the other evidence we are aware of, whilst there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, this is truly very finely balanced indeed. However, the public interest considerations in not pursuing a prosecution outweigh those in favour, as concluded and set out in 2013.

Clarification of costs regarding the prosecution of journalists

It has been implied in recent press reports that the CPS has spent £33m prosecuting journalists. This is not correct – this figure represents the cost of the police investigations and not the CPS consideration of charges and subsequent prosecutions. The CPS has spent £2.2m (up to December 2014) bringing cases in phone hacking and public corruption cases against more than 50 people (many of whom are not journalists) as well as deciding that charges should not be pursued against 49 people of which 25 were journalists. The majority of CPS decision making in these cases has been completed within three months of all the evidence being received from police.

12/3/15

 

Clarification regarding Mirror hacking allegations 

It has been reported in the Independent and i newspapers that the CPS is currently considering charging decisions in relation to phone hacking at titles that belong to the Mirror Group Newspaper. To clarify, other than the completed case of one journalist, who pleaded guilty to a phone hacking offence in November 2014, the police have not submitted full files to the CPS for a charging decision in relation to allegations of phone hacking either by journalists at the Mirror newspaper, or by MGN group.

19/3/15

Clarification of recent reporting in relation to the case of Paul Gambaccini

 

The CPS did not “sit” on a file of evidence against Paul Gambaccini as reported, but made a decision in his case around one month after all the evidence had been received from police on 4 September. While we received initial papers in February 2014 further investigation was necessary in order to properly consider the case.

It is also not right to imply that any decision making was timed in relation to other cases – this would only have been relevant if it had been decided to bring charges which was, of course, not the case in this instance.

Spending almost a year on police bail is of course, difficult, and a matter we do not take lightly, but it is vital that the CPS considers all the evidence in a case – both that which strengthens a case and that which undermines it - so that the right decision can be made, as happened in this case.

This information, along with further detail, has been provided to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

This is the first time that the CPS has used Mr Gambaccini’s name in relation to this case as our firm policy is not to name suspects unless they are charged – unless there are exceptional circumstances.

CPS authorises further charges in relation to death of Becky Watts

The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised Avon and Somerset Police to charge a further four people in connection with the death of 16 year old Becky Watts.

Rachael Scott, head of the CPS South West Complex Casework Unit said:

“Having carefully reviewed all the evidence presented to me by Avon and Somerset police, I have today authorised them to charge Karl Demetrius, Jaydene Parsons, Donavon Demetrius and James Ireland with assisting an offender. The defendants remain in custody and are due before Bristol Magistrates’ Court this afternoon.

“I must remind you that proceedings are now ongoing and the defendants have the right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

“The CPS has worked closely with Det Supt Tunks and her team within the Avon and Somerset police during this complex investigation and will continue to do so until this prosecution is concluded.”

 

CPS decision making in the case of Abid Naseer

In 2009, the Crown Prosecution Service was asked to consider potential charges of preparation of terrorist acts, contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, and conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, in relation to Abid Naseer. Each decision made by the CPS is considered in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The Code requires that in order for a prosecution to take place, there must be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, meaning that a conviction is more likely than not. In this case, the CPS concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute these alleged offences.

A CPS spokesperson said:

“The evidence in our possession in relation to Abid Naseeer which would have been admissible in a criminal court was very limited. Crucially, there was no evidence of training, research or the purchasing of explosives. We had no evidence of an agreement between Abid Naseer and others which would have supported a charge of conspiracy in this country.

“The evidence used by the US authorities to extradite a suspect does not need to meet the same tests as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The CPS does not decide on extradition, but acts on behalf of the overseas party in the British court which decides if an extradition can be allowed.”

Sue Hemming, Head of Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism at the CPS, added:

“Whenever the evidence provided to us by counter terrorism police allows us to prosecute, we do so, with public safety paramount. Our record in successfully prosecuting terrorism, including large scale plots to kill, speaks for itself.

“But in order to prosecute, the law requires us to have sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and which allows us to comply with our duties of disclosure. Evidence must be admissible in a British court. In the case of Abid Naseer, the investigation did not provide that. We fully understand that police need to intervene early to protect the public, as they have explained in this case, but this does sometimes mean that the evidence required to prosecute is simply not available from the investigation.

“We have not seen all the evidence relied upon by American prosecutors and therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment on it. However, it is clear from what is now in the public domain that they had material that we did not have access to at the time Abid Naseer was released from custody.

“The case remained under review as further evidence was collected but there was still insufficient evidence to prove any offence in this country prior to his extradition.”

Additional Information

In January 2010, the then Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Lord Carlile QC, published a report into this case called ‘Operation Pathway'.

The test used by the American authorities to successfully extradite a suspect is based on an assessment of whether there was “probable cause” that the suspect committed the alleged offence. The threshold for this test is different than the one set for the CPS in considering a domestic prosecution, which requires “sufficient evidence of a realistic prospect of conviction.”

The CPS lawyers that decide on a domestic prosecution do not see the papers submitted by the American extradition request or vice versa.

The extradition court does not decide guilt or innocence but only whether extradition would be lawful. Extradition law is a matter for Parliament. Extradition can only be ordered by the court, which must consider all defence challenges including whether it would be compatible with the defendant’s human rights. The Scott Baker Review in 2012 concluded that UK’s extradition arrangements with the US were balanced and fair.

CPS authorises charges in relation to death of Becky Watts

The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised Avon and Somerset Police to charge a 28-year-old man with the murder of 16 year old Becky Watts.

Rachael Scott, head of the CPS South West Complex Casework Unit said:

“The CPS has been in close contact with Avon and Somerset police as their extensive investigation into Becky’s disappearance developed. In particular I have been offering advice and guidance to the police since two people were arrested on Saturday.

"My role is to examine the evidence that is currently available and advise the police in respect of charges.

"Having carried out a detailed review of the evidence gathered by Avon and Somerset Police, my conclusion is that there is sufficient evidence to charge Nathan Matthews with the murder of Becky Watts.

"I have also concluded that there is sufficient evidence to charge Shauna Hoare with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

"I have therefore today authorised Avon and Somerset police to charge them with these offences and they will appear before Bristol Magistrates' Court tomorrow morning.

"Proceedings are now ongoing and the defendants have the right to a fair trial. It is very important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings."

The four men and one woman who were arrested on Monday on suspicion of assisting an offender remain in police custody at this time.

Polly Chowdhury and Kiki Muddar convicted of manslaughter

Polly Chowdhury and Kiki Muddar were convicted today at the Central Criminal Court of the manslaughter of eight-year-old Ayesha Ali. Ayesha was Polly Chowdhury’s daughter and lived with her mother and Kiki Muddar in a flat in Romford.

Baljit Ubhey, CPS London Chief Crown Prosecutor, said: 

"Ayesha Ali died in her own home and was found to have more than 50 injuries to her body, including the head injury which caused her death. This is a place where she should have felt safe and loved but instead it was where she ultimately lost her young life.

"The manipulation and hatred directed towards Ayesha led to her being beaten and tormented for a number of months. The evidence showed that Ayesha was scared and intimidated in her own home.  

"Chowdhury and Muddar have now been brought to justice for this despicable crime."

CPS statement on Operation Doublet charges

 

The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised Greater Manchester Police to charge ten men with a wide range of sexual offences against girls under the age of 16. 

The offences include rape, conspiracy to rape, inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, sexual activity with a child and sexual assault.  They are alleged to have occurred between 2005  and 2013  and relate to eight female complainants.  The majority of offences took place when the complainants were aged under 16 at the time.

Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor, CPS North West said:

“The CPS has been working closely with investigators from Operation Doublet from an early stage in the investigation in connection with this case.  Having carefully considered all the evidence presented to us we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge ten men with these offences and have authorised Greater Manchester Police to do so.

"These defendants now stand charged with serious criminal offences and have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings."

Two of the men, Afraz Ahmed and David Law, were remanded in custody and appeared at Bury Magistrates Court on 24th February.  Five men appear at Bury Magistrates Court on 3 March and the remaining three defendants appear at Tameside Magistrates Court on 4 March.

The defendants are:

David Law, charged with conspiracy to rape x 3 

Afraz Ahmed, charged with conspiracy to rape x 2; rape x 2; inciting a child to engage in sexual activity x 2

Kutab Miah, charged with sexual activity with a child x 3; rape x 1

Shayfur Rhaman, charged with rape x 1 

Marfus Rahman, charged with rape x 3; sexual activity with a child x 3

Mohammed Miah, charged with rape x 3; sexual activity with a child x 3 

Ashfaq Yousaf, charged with rape x 1; aiding and abetting rape x 1

Rehan Ali, charged with rape x 1; sexual activity with a child x 3

Iklaq Chaudhry, charged with sexual activity with a child x 3; rape x 2

Mohammed Davood, charged with sexual assault x 1; assault occasioning actual bodily harm x 1; rape x 3; sexual activity with a child x 1

Charity worker jailed for sexually abusing boys in the UK and Kenya

A 55-year-old charity worker from Herefordshire has today been sentenced to 17 years and 4 months imprisonment for sexual offences which were committed over a 26 year period on eight young boys in the United Kingdom and in Kenya.

The victims in Kenya were able to give evidence from a hotel close to their hometown via video link. This was broadcast into the court room and they were able to be questioned and cross-examined.

A jury at Birmingham Crown Court heard how, following an investigation by West Mercia Police and the National Crime Agency, Simon Harris of Pudleston near Leominster was arrested and charged with 30 sexual offences and five offences relating to indecent images.

On 17 December 2014, Harris was convicted of eight sexual offences (three indecent assaults and five sexual assaults) relating to five Kenyan children in Gilgil, a small town in Kenya, where Harris was a charity volunteer co-ordinator. He was also convicted of four indecent images offences at trial. 

Through his work in Kenya, Harris came into contact with homeless children. He would entice the victims through the promise of work or education to attend his home in Gilgil. Once there, he would provide the boys with alcohol and drugs, and then he would sexually abuse them.

On the first day of his trial, he had pleaded guilty to six sexual offences committed against three boys at a school in Devon in the late 1980s. 

Anamarie Coomansingh, Senior District Crown Prosecutor from West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service’s Complex Casework Unit, said:

“Simon Harris is a dangerous predator of young boys who abused his position of trust and groomed vulnerable victims in the UK and in Kenya for his own sexual gratification. 

“When he was no longer able to teach as a result of his abuse of young victims in Devon, he turned his attention to Kenya where he set up a charity to work with children. Many of these boys in Kenya were illiterate, homeless and extremely vulnerable. Aware of these facts, he callously took advantage of their circumstances and their surroundings to sexually abuse them.

“I would like to personally thank all of the victims and witnesses who gave evidence throughout this trial. It must have been a harrowing experience for them to relive the crimes which Harris committed on them, but without their evidence and support, we would not be here today.

“I would like to take this opportunity to also thank the enforcement agencies and charities which helped support the victims through the trial both here in the UK and in Kenya and the High Commission in Kenya.

“Our message is very clear - serious offenders like Harris cannot prey on vulnerable children abroad without facing justice.”

Fred Talbot convicted of indecent assault

Today at Manchester Minshull St Crown Court, Fred Talbot has been found guilty oftwo indecent assaults against two boys under the age of 16. The offences occurred in the 1970s when he was a qualified teacher at a boys’ grammar school in Greater Manchester. He was acquitted on a further eight counts of indecent assault.

He will be sentenced on 13^th March at Manchester Minshull St Crown Court.

Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor, CPS North West Area said:

“As a teacher, Fred Talbot was in a position of trust and responsibility.  Parents and pupils saw him as a popular, likeable teacher who was willing to give up his time to take children away on school trips.  In fact he used those situations as opportunities to sexually assault two teenage boys who should have been safe in his care.  The offences he committed were a gross betrayal of the trust placed in him.

“The victims, and other witnesses in the case, have shown real courage and resolve in reporting what happened to the police and giving evidence during this trial. Because of their courage Fred Talbot has today been brought to justice for these crimes. 

”I hope that these verdicts will help them in some way and I hope they will give other victims of sexual abuse the confidence to come forward knowing that they will be taken seriously and treated with sensitivity.”

Three men jailed for the rape of a woman in 20-hour ordeal

• Case demonstrates need for context when considering issue of consent

Three men have today [Friday, 13 February] been jailed for a combined total of 18 years for the rape and sexual assault of a 23-year-old woman.

In a protracted attack in a Lincoln flat, Michael Armitage, 42, Rafal Segiet, 40, and Pawal Chudzicki, 47, subjected their victim to an ordeal which lasted 20 hours. Today they were each sentenced to six years’ imprisonment at Lincoln Crown Court.

The issue central to the prosecution case was that the victim lacked the capacity to consent to the sexual activity. The victim, who had been drinking, was taken by the men in a taxi to the flat where the attacks took place on the night of 27 October 2012. She had been out with friends but had become separated from them.

The trial, which began on 5 January 2015 at Lincoln Crown Court, was suspended for a number of days after the trial judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to put before a jury on the basis that a lack of memory does not amount to a lack of capacity to consent.

The prosecution sought a ruling from the Court of Appeal on the evidential sufficiency of the case, arguing that the full context needed to be taken into consideration when considering the issue of consent, including mobile phone footage taken by one of the defendants and blood tests demonstrating a high level alcohol in the victim’s blood. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the prosecution and the trial continued.

Lawrence English, CPS East Midlands Senior District Crown Prosecutor, said: “This was rape as it was clear the woman was in no state to consent to sex. While it is, of course, true that lack of memory, on its own, does not prove lack of consent, the context in this case showed that this victim was taken advantage of because she was incapacitated, and that she could not have consented to sexual activity.

“It is against the law to engage in sexual activity with someone who is clearly unable, through drink, to give their consent. We are pleased that the Court of Appeal ruled in the way it did and the case proceeded to the jury for a verdict.

“The victim in this case has shown tremendous courage in this case. She suffered an horrific ordeal because of the actions of these three men and we are satisfied to see justice has been served.”

Further Information: On 28 January 2015, the Director of Public Prosecution, Alison Saunders, launched toolkits for police and prosecutors on the issue of consent. For the first time, the toolkits spell out situations where a potential victim may have been unable to consent due to incapacity through drink or drugs, for example.

No further action to be taken against PCC Ron Hogg

CPS decision in relation to IPCC referral in respect of Ron Hogg in connection with two bonus payments made to him while he was deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police and in relation to a car that was passed to him when he retired.

Until 2008 Ron Hogg was employed as Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police and on contractual terms that allowed for the payment of bonuses.  There is no evidence that he requested bonuses.  His performance was assessed by the Chief Constable as being very good.  The Chief Constable recommended the bonuses to Mr Hogg and a number of other individuals on the grounds of excellent performance.  These were approved by the Police Authority at the time and recipients were informed of their awards at routine meetings. 

The evidence in this case indicates that when Mr Hogg retired the Cleveland Police Authority Leadership Panel agreed that he could keep his company car as part of his leaving arrangements.  The Panel had taken advice from a barrister who stated that a decision to allow Mr Hogg to keep his vehicle was “not only fair but in accordance with the spirit of the guidance”.

In 2012 Mr Hogg was elected as the Police and Crime Commissioner for Durham. 

In September 2013 the Durham Police and Crime Panel referred these matters to the IPCC; who have conducted an investigation.

On 30 January 2015 the CPS was asked by the IPCC to consider the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. This offence requires proof that a public officer, acting as such and without reasonable excuse or justification, wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.  

The matter has been considered by a Specialist Prosecutor within the CPS Special Crime Division who for the sake of completeness also considered the Fraud Act.

Having considered the evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to show that any crime has been committed and we have advised that no further action be taken. 

Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.

Notes to Editors 

The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, a copy of which is provided via the link below:

www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/index.html 

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

Briton jailed for terrorist activity in Syria

Imran Khawaja, of London, was today jailed at Woolwich Crown Court having previously pleaded guilty to preparing acts of terrorism, attending a terrorist training camp, weapons training and possession of an article for terrorist purposes.

On 26 January 2014, Imran Khawaja left Heathrow on a journey to Syria, where he was provided with training at a terrorist camp. Satellite imagery confirms that Khawaja had been north of Kirkuk in Iraq and southwest of Aleppo in Syria during his time abroad. Here, he joined a group known as Rayat al-Tawheed, an insurgent group of Islamist Muslims, principally from London, who are either members of and/or sympathetic to the message and activities of the Islamic State (IS).

In May 2014, Rayat al-Tawheed announced on social media that a “British ISIS fighter” who they called Abu Daigham al-Britani had been killed. Using clothing recognition techniques from previous photos of Abu Daigham al-Britani, this was identified as Imran Khawaja.

His death was soon discovered to be false when Khawaja was arrested in June 2014 trying to re-enter the UK, facilitated by his cousin, Tahir Farooq Bhatti. Both were arrested. A third man, Asim Ali, was later arrested when it was discovered that he was part of Khawaja’s UK support network. Ali later pleaded guilty to entering into a funding arrangement for the purposes of terrorism, contrary to Section 17 Terrorism Act 2000 and Bhatti pleaded guilty to assisting an offender contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. 

Deborah Walsh, Deputy Head of Counter Terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Imran Khawaja’s actions are one of the most appalling examples of violent extremism that I have seen committed by British jihadis returning from Syria.

“Photos and videos of Khawaja posing with child soldiers and severed heads defy the understanding of civilised people and paint a picture of a man who would stop at nothing to spread terror and hatred. It is clear from the evidence that he went to Syria to train and to fight, and was close to, if not directly in, a combat zone.

“It is vital that we bring the full force of the law against those who leave the UK to join terrorist causes. But people can only travel to engage in terrorism in Syria with the help and support of fundraisers and facilitators like Tahir Farooq Bhatti and Asim Ali, so it is right that they too are held to account for their actions.”

Former paediatrician Michael Salmon found guilty of 11 counts of rape and indecent assault

Adrian Foster, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Thames and Chiltern said,

“Michael Salmon has been convicted today of offences which are particularly shocking due to the abuse of his position as a doctor taking advantage of the female patients in his care. His crimes were extremely traumatic for his victims who should have expected his support rather than this gross betrayal of their trust.

“Michael Salmon used his status to molest these vulnerable young girls and women who felt unable to complain as he was a doctor, and many of whom only bravely came forward after seeing other cases in the media. I hope they now feel that justice has been done.”

For information:

Michael Salmon was a consultant paediatrician working in Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire. The counts against him all related to a period in the late 1970s and 1980s.

Michael Salmon found guilty of:

Two counts of rape, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956

Nine counts of indecent assault, contrary to section 14 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956