CPS News Brief

Surgery manager convicted of NHS fraud

Asif Butt, a former practice manager at an NHS surgery in Birmingham, was today [Friday, 19 December] handed a two-year prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, at Birmingham Crown Court for fraud, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

He was also handed a 12-month supervision order, must pay £800 costs and was ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work.

Between 13/06/2012 and 04/08/2012, Asif Butt registered six people onto the NHS register allowing them access to free health care to which they were not entitled.

Mr Butt was caught by an undercover reporter for BBC’s Panorama. He asked to be paid £5,800 for the registrations of six people – all of whom did not exist.

The defendant knew that the six “people” he registered were not entitled to NHS health care as they were not legal residents in the UK.

The undercover reporter posed as one of these fictitious people and went on to obtain a free MRI scan as a result.

Ben Reid, senior prosecutor at the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Asif Butt abused his position of authority purely for his own financial gain. Instead of safeguarding the public purse, he used his knowledge of NHS systems to make himself a profit.

“Following an investigation by undercover journalists these actions came to light and he now has to pay the price for his dishonesty.”

 

Notes to Editors 

This matter came to light following BBC Panorama's 'Britain's Secret Health Tourists', first aired on BBC One on Wednesday, 3 October 2012.

Asif Butt was convicted of: Fraud, contrary to sections 1 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.

Asif Butt between 13/6/2012 and 4/8/2012, at Birmingham, committed fraud in that, while occupying a position, namely practice manager at Sparkbrook Health Centre, in which you were expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of the National Health Service, you dishonestly abused that position intending thereby to make a gain for yourself, namely £5,800.

Police officers charged following 2012 death of Thomas Orchard in Exeter

A police sergeant and two custody detention officers have been charged with manslaughter and misconduct in public office following the death of Thomas Orchard in Exeter in October 2012, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced today [Wednesday 17 December 2014].

Mr Orchard was a 32-year-old who was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and in a condition of relapse. He was arrested and restrained on the morning on 3 October 2012. He was taken to Heavitree Police Station Custody Unit and removed from the police van into the holding area and then a cell. Emergency medical assistance was rendered and he was taken to hospital, where he later died.

A full file of evidence was submitted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in October 2014 following their investigation into the way police officers are alleged to have conducted themselves during their contact with Mr Orchard.

Malcolm McHaffie, CPS Deputy Head of Special Crime, said:

“Sergeant Jan Kingshott and Custody Detention Officers Simon Tansley and Michael Marsden, all of Devon & Cornwall Constabulary, have been charged with the manslaughter of Thomas Orchard and with misconduct in public office.

“As part of our review of this case we have also decided that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against three Devon & Cornwall police constables and an on-site custody nurse employed by Serco.

“The decision to prosecute was reached after careful consideration of the evidence and was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

“All three individuals will appear at Exeter Magistrates’ Court on 29 January 2015.

“Criminal proceedings have now commenced and the defendants 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.”

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS

The charges are as follows:

· Manslaughter (by Unlawful Act). Simon Tansley, Michael Marsden and Jan Kingshott between the 2nd October 2012 and 11th October 2012 unlawfully killed Thomas Orchard namely, by the use of unreasonable force.

· Manslaughter (by Gross Negligence). Simon Tansley, Michael Marsden and Jan Kingshott between the 2nd October 2012 and 11th October 2012 unlawfully killed Thomas Orchard namely, by gross negligence, in that:

i) As a detainee custody officer he owed a duty of care towards Thomas Orchard who was in his custody;

ii) He breached that duty of care in restraining Thomas Orchard by :

    (a) Using methods or actions of restraint which unduly restricted his breathing;

    (b) Maintaining him in a position which restricted his breathing over a prolonged and unnecessary period of time;

    (c) Failing to have sufficient regard as to whether his ability to breathe properly was impaired.

iii) That breach amounted to gross negligence;

iv) That breach exposed Thomas Orchard to the risk of death and it was a substantial cause of his death.

· Misconduct in a public office, contrary to Common Law. Simon Tansley, Michael Marsden and Jan Kingshott on 3rd October 2012 at Exeter, while acting as public officers, wilfully misconducted themselves in relation to their dealings with Thomas Orchard.

Medical staff to be charged following death of Jack Adcock, 6, at Leicester Royal Infirmary

Three members of medical staff will be charged with gross negligence manslaughter following the death of Jack Adcock, 6, at the Leicester Royal Infirmary on 18 February 2011, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has announced today.

Fiona Morrison, Specialist Prosecutor with the CPS Special Crime Division, said: “We have carefully considered the evidence gathered by Leicestershire Police into the treatment and care of Jack Adcock by Doctor Hadiza Bawa-Garba, Sister Theresa Taylor and Staff Nurse Isabel Amaro.

“Having completed our review, we have concluded there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Dr Bawa-Garba, Sister Taylor and Staff Nurse Amaro to each face charges of gross negligence manslaughter. The decision to prosecute has been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“May I remind all concerned that Dr Bawa-Garba, Sister Taylor and Staff Nurse Amaro have a 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.”

Dr Bawa-Garba, Sister Taylor and Staff Nurse Amaro will appear at Leicester Magistrates' Court on Friday, 23 January.

 

Notes to editors

The charges are:

• HADIZA BAWA-GARBA on the 18th day of February 2011 unlawfully killed Jack Adcock by gross negligence. Contrary to Common Law.
• THERESA TAYLOR on the 18th day of February 2011 unlawfully killed Jack Adcock by gross negligence. Contrary to Common Law.
• ISABEL AMARO on the 18th day of February 2011 unlawfully killed Jack Adcock by gross negligence. Contrary to Common Law.

Operation Yewtree: Ex-DJ Chris Denning jailed

Ex-DJ Chris Denning was today [Tuesday, 16 December] jailed after previously pleading guilty to 40 sexual offences committed against young boys over a near 20-year period.

Southwark Crown Court heard that between 1967 and 1987, Denning abused 24 boys. His youngest victims could not remember how old they were when he abused them, but one said he had been between nine and eleven, while others were aged up to 16.

Baljit Ubhey, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS in London, said:

“Chris Denning used his DJ career and, later, his computer shop in Dorset to lure and prey on young boys. He used the computers and access to video games as a way of enticing young boys.

“He gave them free run of the shop and groomed his young victims with alcohol, cigarettes and money as well as encouraging them to look at pornography.

“The extent of Denning’s child sexual abuse was truly appalling. The totality of his offending was significant and I hope that his jail sentence will be some small comfort to his many victims who were brave enough to come forward .

“This case demonstrates that where there is sufficient evidence we will continue to prosecute such cases with determination. I would like to thank the police and my team for their hard work in securing this conviction.”

Notes to editors:

Chris Denning pleaded guilty to:

· 36 counts of Indecent Assaults

· Four counts of Indecency with a Child

One man charged with misconduct in public office and no further action against a second individual for conspiracy to commit misconduct

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

“The CPS has today authorised the police to charge David Hobbs, an Operations Support Grade officer working for HMP, with misconduct in public office.

“After careful consideration it has been decided that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest. 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.

“David Hobbs will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 7 January 2015.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant will now be commenced and of his 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.

“The CPS has also decided that no further action will be taken regarding a second individual, a journalist, whose full file was passed to the CPS on 28 October 2014. After careful consideration it has been decided that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. This decision has been made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“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.

Details of the charge:

David Hobbs

Misconduct in Public Office, between the 28 February 2010 and 1 April 2010

Colin Ash-Smith guilty of Claire Tiltman's murder

Jaswant Narwal, CPS South East Chief Crown Prosecutor, said:

“Today we have been able to bring Claire Tiltman’s killer to justice, ending 21 years of uncertainty for all those who cared for her. Claire’s murder shocked the whole community and her death has never been forgotten.

“Colin Ash-Smith is a ruthless and dangerous man with a history of committing violent offences against women. He believed that he could evade justice for more than 20 years, but he was wrong. For all these years he thought he could hide behind the lack of forensic, identification or other direct evidence linking him to the murder. However, a number of seemingly small coincidences on that January evening which, when carefully considered, examined and put together, made for a compelling case which pointed only to Ash-Smith as Claire’s killer.

“Central to our case was Ash-Smith’s ‘arc of offending’, where his attacks increased in ferocity and severity over the years. The remarkable similarity of Claire’s murder to other crimes committed by Ash-Smith in the Greenhithe area, along with his pattern of setting up false alibis on four separate occasions to divert attention away from himself were two of the most important features that supported the circumstantial case against him and helped to prove his guilt.

“It is tragic that neither of Claire’s parents, Cliff or Lin, are alive to witness justice being done, but I hope that today’s verdict does bring some closure for Claire’s remaining family and her friends, who – as the Justice For Claire campaign – have campaigned tirelessly to ensure that the case remained in the public eye for all these years.

“This has been one of the most complex cases that the CPS has dealt with in the South East in recent years. This has been a real team effort with Kent Police, investigators and prosecutors working closely together on this case over the last three years to ensure that we could bring this case to court and achieve justice for Claire”.

Aravindan Balakrishnan charged with false imprisonment, cruelty, indecent assault and rape

Anthony Connell, senior prosecutor at the CPS said,

“The CPS has today authorised the police to charge Aravindan Balakrishnan with a number of charges including false imprisonment, cruelty to a person under 16 years, indecent assault and rape.

“After careful consideration we have decided that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

“Aravindan Balakrishnan will appear before Westminster Magistrates Court on Wednesday 17 December 2014.

“A decision of no further action has also been made in relation to a second individual, a woman arrested on 21 November 2013, as there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant have been commenced and of his 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.

“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.”

Details of the full charges:

Aravindan Balakrishnan

Cruelty to a person under 16 years, contrary to section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933

False imprisonment

Indecent assault, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956

Rape, contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956

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.

Please be aware of anonymity provisions regarding the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

Statement from the Director of Public Prosecutions on Eleanor de Freitas

Eleanor de Freitas’ tragic death was just days before she was due to stand trial for perverting the course of justice. The pending inquest will deal with the circumstances surrounding her death and I do not want to interfere with that process. However the case has understandably raised questions about private prosecutions in these types of cases and why the CPS took over and continued this particular case.

Having considered the detail and the issues raised by the family, I am satisfied that the decision making in this case was correct and that it was made in accordance with our policies and guidance. I have separately met with Ms de Freitas’ father, David de Freitas, to explain in more detail our decision and the evidence informing it, much of which is personal and sensitive and therefore inappropriate for the CPS to make public. This statement is aimed at explaining the reasoning behind our decision making and not at exploring the evidence in the case, as the allegations concerned have not been properly tested in court. Notwithstanding the correct decision making, this case has highlighted a number of wider issues which I have also discussed with Miss de Freitas’ family and I have welcomed their input.

Cases of perverting the course of justice or wasting police time in relation to an alleged false rape claim are rare, but where there is sufficient evidence to show that a false claim may have been made, the potential harm to those affected must be very carefully considered and an appropriate decision made. This case was unprecedented and one of the most complex I have seen in that not only did it require careful consideration of Ms de Freitas’ mental health, it was also the subject of a private prosecution without a full police investigation.

Parliament has preserved the right of individuals to bring private prosecutions. This right is limited for some offences by the need for my consent but no such limit applies to cases of perverting the course of justice. When we receive a request to intervene, as we did in this case, we must consider that request and apply the same test, set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, as we would to any other prosecution. If, as here, the case does meet our test we have two options. One is to leave the case in the hands of the private prosecutor, the other is to take the case over and conduct it. Our Legal Guidance states that private prosecutions should be taken over and prosecuted where the offence is serious and also where the case is one “that merits the prosecution being conducted by a public prosecuting authority rather than by a private individual”. Given the test was met in this case, had the CPS not taken over proceedings, a private prosecution would have continued. In my view, given the nature of the allegations, that would not have been appropriate.

At this stage it is important to stress that rape is an incredibly serious crime which remains under-reported, partly because victims fear that they will not be believed. Nothing in this unique and tragic case should put anyone else off from making a complaint of rape or sexual assault. The CPS has done a huge amount of work in recent years to ensure that all the very difficult aspects of cases involving allegations of sexual offences where vulnerable parties are involved are considered correctly. Highly skilled rape specialist lawyers deal with all rape and serious sexual offence cases and they are alive to the signs of possible intimidation, humiliation and shame, and self-blaming which can be displayed in behaviours previously thought as potentially undermining to some allegations of rape. As a culmination of almost four years’ work raising awareness of the sensitivities and issues surrounding cases involving allegedly false rape claims, we are also in the process of updating our guidance on prosecuting cases of Perverting the Course of Justice where it is alleged a false claim has been made.

However, the evidence in this case was strong and having considered it in light of all of our knowledge and guidance on prosecuting sexual offences and allegedly false rape claims, it is clear there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for perverting the course of justice. This was evidence including text messages and CCTV footage that directly contradicted the account Ms de Freitas gave to the police. This was not assumption based on her behaviour or actions which fall into myths and stereotypes about how alleged rape victims should behave. It was on this basis that we concluded that there was a realistic prospect of proving that the rape allegation made by Ms de Freitas was false, and there was also a strong public interest in prosecuting due to the seriousness of the alleged offence which was maintained by the defendant for some time and which led to the arrest of an individual.

I must remind everyone that no case has been proved against Ms de Freitas and so no conclusions can be made or stated as fact. Indeed the test that we must satisfy to bring a case to court – that it has a realistic prospect of conviction - is very different to the higher test of being sure of a person’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt which a jury must decide upon. I am satisfied that prosecutors had taken the necessary steps in assuring themselves that Ms de Freitas’ mental health had been properly considered. This was in the form of a very detailed report by a consultant forensic psychiatrist instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal team, who also took into account the views of Ms de Freitas’ consultant psychiatrist. That medical assessment was clear. The doctor instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal representative recommended that she was aware of the implications of making a false allegation, as she was alleged to have done, and was fit to stand trial. We do not take on these kinds of prosecutions lightly, but the medical evidence provided to us could not justify dropping such a serious case. No further representations were made to us as to Ms de Freitas’ health, which would of course have been carefully considered.

There has been speculation that the police did not agree with the prosecution for various reasons. However, the police never undertook an investigation into the alleged perverting the course of justice nor did they consider all the material provided to us by the private prosecution. They were therefore not in a position to form a view on whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Bringing such a prosecution without the support of the police from the outset is extremely unusual. However police engagement should have been secured by the CPS at a far earlier stage than did in fact happen when a police disclosure officer was provided in March 2014. Although the majority of the material was provided to the defence, Ms de Freitas’ police interview was only provided at a late stage.

If the CPS is invited to consider a private prosecution and the conclusion is reached that either the evidential or the public interest test is not met then we will, of course, take over the case and discontinue it. If, on the other hand, both these tests are met the question remains whether the prosecution should be conducted by the CPS or by the private prosecutor. As a result of this case, I intend to make it clear to prosecutors that, where the allegation in question arises out of an alleged false claim of rape, it would be an exceptional course for it to be left in the hands of the private prosecutor.

I have expressed my very personal and heartfelt sympathies to Ms de Freitas’ family and I hope that I have been able to explain the actions of the CPS to them, although I know that will be little comfort for the terrible and tragic loss of their daughter.

 

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions

Seven people found guilty of conspiring to cheat the revenue of £4.8m by abusing diplomatic status

Seven individuals have today been found guilty of conspiracy to cheat the revenue. They bought tobacco in commercial quantities free of tax and duty due to the diplomatic status of four of the defendants.

The individuals purchased large quantities of tobacco at these tax-free rates, which were only permissible for goods that were for their own personal use or that of The Gambian High Commission, as it was at the time. It was accepted by the defendants during the trial that much of the tobacco was sold onto others. As such, VAT and excise duty should have been paid for these goods to the value of almost £4.8m.

All defendants but one (Ida Jeng Njie) were employed by The Gambian Diplomatic Mission, now an embassy in London.

Lisa Rose, specialist fraud prosecutor at the CPS said,

“The deception undertaken by these defendants involved a serious breach of the trust of their own government and of the British people. The scheme they designed and implemented not only resulted in the public purse being cheated of almost £4.8m in tax revenue, but it also abused their diplomatic status, taking advantage of the entire system of diplomatic privilege which is reliant on trust and responsibility.

“For all practical purposes, the scheme in operation was like running a business and the volume of tobacco was so large that to suggest it was for personal use, or for the use of the High Commission, is implausible.

“Fraud cases requiring diplomatic immunity to be waived are unusual. We would like to thank the Government of The Gambia for waiving diplomatic immunity in respect of the four defendants, who otherwise would have enjoyed the benefit of immunity in this case, and to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in securing those waivers. The public should have confidence that in cases where our tax systems have been exploited, all steps will be taken to ensure that diplomatic staff cannot commit offences and then hide behind diplomatic immunity.”

Yusupha Bojang, Gaston Sambou, Georgina Gomez, Ebrima John, Veerahia Ramarajaha, Audrey Leeward and Hasaintu Noah were found guilty of conspiracy to cheat the revenue contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Ida Jeng Njie was found not guilty of conspiracy to cheat the revenue contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Veerahia Ramarajaha was found guilty of dealing/harbouring/concealing/carrying dutiable goods contrary to section 170 (1)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

Ray Teret found guilty of sexual offences

Today, Ray Teret was found guilty of sexual offences at Manchester Crown Court, Minshull Street. The offences occurred in the 1960s and 1970s and involved 11 victims.

Teret was found guilty of seven charges of rape and 11 of sexual assault and he will be sentenced at Manchester Crown Court, Minshull Street on 11 December.

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

“During the sixties and seventies Ray Teret was a popular Manchester DJ. He used this status to target young and vulnerable girls who were impressionable and in some cases simply star struck.

“He singled his victims out for attention, using charm and flattery, before subjecting them to traumatic and callous assaults. Some he groomed over a period of time, whilst others he assaulted soon after he first approached them. Some of the victims were only 13 years of age. 

“The victims in this case have lived with the reality of what Ray Teret did for many years. It has had a significant impact upon all of their lives – personally, professionally and socially. In some cases it has had devastating consequences. Most of them felt they couldn’t tell anyone about it until recently. Many of them had thought it was their fault – it was never their fault. 

“They have all shown enormous bravery in coming forward to the police and in attending court to speak out about what happened. Their collective courage has ensured that Ray Teret has been brought to justice today. He must now face up to the reality and consequences of his offences.

“I hope today’s verdict will in some way help these victims to move on with their lives and I also hope it provides other victims of sexual abuse with the courage and confidence to come forward.”

Police officers to be charged following 2013 death of Bijan Ebrahimi

Three police constables and a police community support officer will be charged with misconduct in a public office following the death of Bijan Ebrahimi in Bristol in July 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced today [Friday, 5 December].

Mr Ebrahimi was murdered on 14 July 2013, because some of his neighbours wrongly believed he was a paedophile. Two men were later jailed in connection with his death; Lee James for life for murder and Stephen Norley for four years for assisting an offender.

A full file of evidence was submitted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in October 2014 following their investigation into the way police officers are alleged to have responded to events and to contact from Mr Ebrahimi during the days leading to his death.

Malcolm McHaffie, CPS Deputy Head of Special Crime, said:

“PCs Kevin Duffy, Helen Harris and Leanne Winter, all of Avon & Somerset Constabulary, are to be charged with misconduct in public office for allegedly failing to respond to allegations and calls for help from Mr Ebrahimi.

“PCSO Andrew Passmore is to be charged with misconduct in public office for allegedly giving false information to the 999 operator that he was outside Mr Ebrahimi’s home at an important time. He will also be charged with perverting the course of justice for allegedly giving different accounts to the police murder investigation and the IPCC investigation.

“As part of our review of this case we have also decided that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges of misconduct in public office against two other members of Avon & Somerset Constabulary staff - a police emergency call taker and an emergency call supervisor.

“The decision to prosecute was reached after careful consideration of the evidence and was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

“All four individuals will appear at Bristol Magistrates’ Court for a preliminary hearing on 14 January 2015.

“Criminal proceedings have now commenced and the aforementioned individuals 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.”

ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS

The charges are as follows:

1. Kevin Duffy between 10 and 15 July 2013 at Bristol, while acting as a public officer, namely a police constable, wilfully misconducted himself in relation to his dealings with Bijan Ebrahimi, contrary to common law

2. Helen Harris between 10 and 15 July 2013 at Bristol, while acting as a public officer, namely a police constable, wilfully misconducted herself in relation to her dealings with Bijan Ebrahimi, contrary to common law

3. Leanne Winter between 10 and 15 July 2013 at Bristol, while acting as a public officer, namely a police constable, wilfully misconducted herself in relation to her dealings with Bijan Ebrahimi, contrary to common law

4. Andrew Passmore between 11 and 15 July 2013 at Bristol, while acting as a public officer, namely a police community support officer, wilfully misconducted himself in relation to his dealings with Bijan Ebrahimi, contrary to common law

5. Andrew Passmore between 11 July and 12 November 2013 at Bristol, with intent to pervert the course of justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of justice in that he lied about an area being quiet and repeated that lie in two witness statements, contrary to common law.

Commercial director found guilty of manslaughter following the tragic death of a worker sentenced to three years

Anghel Milosavlevici was a worker employed by Siday Construction Ltd. which was contracted to provide building services to a residential property in October 2010. This work included the excavation of the basement and the underpinning of the supporting walls. During this work, Anghel Milosavlevici was working in an unsupported trench when the side wall collapsed and he was fatally crushed.

Deborah Jeffrey, specialist prosecutor at the CPS said,

“Anghel Milosavlevici’s tragic death was preventable and inexcusable. While working on the excavation of the house, his safety was the responsibility of Conrad Sidebottom, the commercial director of Siday, and Richard Golding, the independent health and safety consultant contracted to provide advice to Siday.

“These men did not fulfil their duties, with a haphazard attitude to the safety of the employees working in the house. Their failures led to these tragic consequences which should never have occurred.”

The jury found Conrad Sidebottom guilty of manslaughter and Richard Golding guilty of exposing another to a risk of health and safety. Conrad Sidebottom was today handed down a sentence of three years, three months and Richard Golding was handed down a sentence of nine months.

HSE Inspector Dominic Long, who supported the joint police and HSE investigation, added:

“Mr Milosavlevici’s tragic death could easily have been avoided had the basement work been better planned and managed by company owner and site manager Conrad Sidebottom. Had all the excavations on site been properly shored and propped the fatal collapse simply would not have happened.

“In addition, had Richard Golding inspected the site properly during his earlier visits he would have identified both that work wasn’t being carried out in accordance with a written safe system of work, and that the excavations posed a clear risk. By failing in his duty he allowed unsafe work practices to continue with devastating consequences.

“Both parties are culpable and their failings are shocking. Anyone involved in basement excavation must recognise the significant dangers that this type of work poses and ensure that safe systems of work are in place at all times. This involves the appointment of a competent temporary works engineer, clear and competent site management, and adequate shoring and propping of excavations."

Action on cases involving Mazher Mahmood

CPS Spokesperson said:

"Following the halting of the trial of Ms Contostavlos and Mr Coombs we took steps to identify current and past cases involving Mr Mahmood as a prosecution witness.  We made it our immediate priority to carefully look into live prosecutions in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and any past cases which involved a defendant still in custody.  There were no concluded cases where a defendant was still in custody, but we identified three live cases; each case was looked at individually and no evidence was offered as we concluded that there was no longer a realistic prospect of a conviction.

"We are now considering past cases which resulted in a conviction in criminal courts in England and Wales based on evidence provided by Mr Mahmood, and have identified 25 cases. As part of this process, over the coming weeks, CPS Areas will be contacting representatives of the defendants – or defendants themselves as necessary - convicted in these cases in order to provide them with a disclosure pack – details of material which they may consider undermines the conviction in a specific case.

"When making a charging decision, each case and the evidence provided to us is assessed on its own merit and a decision is made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.  If, after the conclusion of proceedings new material comes to light that may cast doubt upon the safety of a conviction we have a duty to consider disclosure. By providing disclosure packs to the defence, consideration can be given as to whether or not this material might cast doubt upon the safety of any convictions.    

"We are providing this information to defence representatives to allow them to consider whether there is any basis for their client’s case to be referred to the Court of Appeal or to the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC). We have also provided the disclosure packs to the Law Society, CCRC and relevant regulatory bodies that we are aware of and who have had cases involving Mr Mahmood.

"The safety of convictions is of paramount importance to the CPS. Therefore if defence representatives have not been contacted by the end of December and provided with a disclosure pack then we would invite them to contact their local CPS office in order to provide their details and to request a pack.  

"Care should be taken when reporting matters relating to Mr Mahmood to ensure it does not affect the fairness of future proceedings as a police investigation in remains ongoing."

CANCER DOCTOR WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED YOUNG PATIENTS JAILED FOR 22 YEARS

The sexual abuse of young patients carried out by Cambridgeshire cancer treatment doctor Myles Bradbury was one of the worst cases of a breach of trust prosecuted by CPS East of England.

Michelle Brown, head of the CPS East of England’s Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Unit (RASSO), said: “This paedophile doctor took advantage of his young patients battling serious illness by systematically sexually abusing them. Such cruelty is unimaginable to most of us.

“The extent of that abuse and the number of victims – 18 – was a gross breach of the trust placed in Myles Bradbury and one of the worst cases of this kind that we have prosecuted.”

Myles Bradbury, who was a blood cancer specialist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, admitted 25 charges, including sexual assault of a child under 13 years, sexual activity with a child, causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and making indecent photographs. He was sentenced to a total of 22 years at Cambridge Crown Court.

Ms Brown added: “The sentence given to Myles Bradbury reflects the seriousness of what he did and the breach of trust involved. We hope that it gives some comfort to those affected to know that he has been held to account for his crimes.”

SOLDIER WHO MADE NAIL BOMB JAILED FOR TWO YEARS

A serving soldier who produced a homemade nail bomb was today [Friday, 28 November] jailed for two years.

Private Ryan McGee, 19, of Eccles, Greater Manchester, was sentenced at the Old Bailey after earlier pleading guilty to making an Improvised Explosive Device and possession of a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook – a 1970s guide to making bombs and illegal drugs.

Ryan McGee was serving with 5^th Battalion The Rifles in Paderborn, Germany, in December 2013 when the nail bomb was discovered in his Salford home by police officers.

He had surfed the internet, bought supplies and watched videos and read books about how to make explosive devices. He was detained by Royal Military Police and later flown back to the UK, where he was charged with terrorism offences.

Mari Reid, of the Crown Prosecution Service Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Ryan McGee constructed the nail bomb at home using parts he had sourced locally.

“This was a crude but viable device that, at the point of explosion, would have sent glass fragments and metal screws flying. Had it been detonated this device had the potential to kill or seriously maim anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby.”

 

Notes to editors:

At a previous hearing at the Old Bailey on 3 October 2014, Ryan McGee pleaded guilty to:

-         Count one: Possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terror, namely The Anarchist Cookbook

-         Count two: Making explosives contrary to the Explosives Substance Act, namely making an Improvised Explosive Device

For count one, Ryan McGee was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. For count two, Ryan McGee was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, set to run concurrently.