CPS News Brief

John Allen guilty of 33 charges of abuse

Ed Beltrami, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service Cymru-Wales, said:

“John Allen is responsible for a shameful catalogue of abuse, carried out over a period of decades and impacting on a large number of victims. 

“He targeted vulnerable young people in the most callous and calculating manner. He used intimidation and violence as weapons and took advantage of his position of power and influence. 

“Thanks to the bravery and persistence of a large number of his victims, he has been made to face up to what he did in a criminal court. 

“We cannot undo the distress and damage caused by Allen to his victims and those close to them, but we hope that they will regard today's convictions as another important milestone in their efforts to come to terms with what happened.

“Finally, I would stress that Operation Pallial is ongoing. It is vital that any public comment on this case does not undermine the work of the investigation and prosecution teams.”

13 men convicted of child sex exploitation offences

Thirteen men have been convicted of child sexual exploitation offences following an investigation in Bristol. 

The men were convicted of 42 offences following two trials at Bristol Crown Court.

Following the first trial held in the spring, six men were convicted of child sexual exploitation offences and they were sentenced to a combined total of more than 70 years’ imprisonment.

The second trial began in October and lasted more than 10 weeks. Following this, seven men were convicted of child sexual exploitation offences. They are due to be sentenced on Friday (28/11).

Howard Phillips, Senior Crown Prosecutor from the CPS South West Complex Casework Unit, said:

“These cases have unmasked the horrors of child sexual exploitation and child abusers everywhere should take note of these convictions.  Vulnerable young people were used by these men for their own gratification, convinced that what was happening to them was normal, and controlled through systematic abuse and the promise of drugs and affection.

“The victims in this case have been incredibly brave in coming forward and giving evidence at court.  I hope these results will stand as a testament to their bravery and give other victims the courage to come forward to the police secure in the knowledge they will be listened to. Every victim has a voice and deserves to have that voice heard. 

“Child sexual exploitation has a devastating impact, not only on the victims and their families but the communities in which both the victims and defendants live.

“The CPS takes child sexual exploitation extremely seriously and we have worked closely with the police and other partners from the very beginning in order to bring the strongest possible case to court which has resulted in the conviction of 13 men.”

No action to be taken against individual identified as a suspect in the ongoing murder investigation of Stephen Lawrence

Lionel Idan, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor, from CPS said: “On 21st October the CPS decided that no further action will be taken in relation to an individual, identified as a suspect in the ongoing police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

“A file was received on 31st May 2014 from the Metropolitan Police. After careful consideration it has been decided that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. The 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.”

Man sentenced after driving incident on Humberside Airport runway

A car thief who crashed through airport fencing and careered onto the runway, leaving an aircraft running low on fuel circling above, has been jailed for three years and eight months.

Matthew Dobson has been sentenced at Grimsby Crown Court after earlier pleading guilty to a number of driving offences and a charge of recklessly endangering an aircraft in Grimsby.

On the morning of 5 August, Dobson, 40, stole a set of car keys to a Renault Clio from a house in Grimsby, and drove off leaving the shocked owner locked in her property.  He made off at speed, performing dangerous undertaking and overtaking manoeuvres in rush hour traffic, with police initially in pursuit.

Having evaded the police, he made his way to Humberside Airport, where he crashed through mesh fencing and onto the runway. Driving underneath the path of a helicopter which was in the process of taking off, he then accelerated to speeds of approximately 80 mph down the main runway, before coming to rest in a field.  Dobson then abandoned the car, and was later found lying down in the grass in a futile attempt to hide himself. When challenged, he said he was a farmer.

A KLM passenger flight was due to land as this incident was unfolding.  It was put in a holding pattern and had seven minutes left to divert to a different airfield to ensure it had enough fuel left to land somewhere safely.

Jeremy Evans, Crown Advocate, CPS Yorkshire and Humberside, said: “This bizarre crime spree was extraordinarily dangerous and reckless, putting many peoples’ lives at risk.

“Matthew Dobson acted with utter impunity and demonstrated a complete and appalling lack of concern for his or anyone else’s safety. He took it upon himself to commit this series of offences and it was sheer fortune that no tragedy occurred that day.

“I would like to thank the victims and witnesses who came forward to give evidence in this unprecedented case.”

 

 

Notes to Editors

Matthew Dobson was charged, and pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to:

• Burglary
• Dangerous driving
• Aggravated vehicle taking
• Driving whilst disqualified
• Reckless endangerment of an aircraft

CPS decides no criminal charges should be brought following investigation into police actions in relation to the Kevin Nunes murder trial

Introduction

Operation Kalmia 2 was an investigation to determine whether any offences had been committed in connection with Staffordshire Police’s handling of disclosure of unused material in a prosecution (relating to the death of Kevin Nunes), which resulted in the convictions for murder in the subsequent criminal proceedings being quashed by the Court of Appeal.

Following an investigation led by Chief Constable of Derbyshire Mick Creedon and managed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was asked to consider allegations in relation to two matters relating to the handling of the murder trial:

1. The decision to delay a complaint investigation until after the trial.

2. The failure to disclose a report into the management of the Sensitive Policing Unit which handled sensitive witnesses, including the main witness at the trial who was under police protection.

The evidence underlying these two matters has been considered in great detail by the Special Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service. The case has been reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which requires that prosecutors consider whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and whether or not it would be in the public interest to prosecute. We considered whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that any action or inaction was a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice or could amount to the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

It should be noted that when the Court of Appeal heard the appeals against the convictions for murder it stated that both matters displayed poor judgment and poor management.

The CPS has determined there is insufficient evidence to prosecute any of the nine police officers, four remain in service while five are now retired, investigated either for attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of public justice or for criminal misconduct in a public office.

1.The decision to delay investigation of the complaint against a senior officer of the Sensitive Policing Unit

In January 2006 Staffordshire police received a complaint from the main witness relating to a senior officer of the Sensitive Policing Unit. The police consulted with prosecution counsel and the CPS in the murder case. The written complaints themselves were considered not to be relevant (and therefore they were not disclosed). The complaint investigation had not been completed. Police took a decision not to progress the complaint investigation before the trial. The evidence shows the CPS and Counsel did not disagree with that decision. The complaint was in relation to an officer who was not a witness in the murder trial. An investigation into the complaint was completed after the trial and no findings emerged which would have fallen to be disclosed to the defence during the trial.

The Court of Appeal stated in its judgement that it was very concerned about the decision not to investigate the complaints prior to the trial and that it was quite wrong. We agreed with the Court of Appeal at the hearing and for the avoidance of doubt we still agree.

However, having carefully considered the evidence we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to show that any decision to delay this investigation was a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.

2. The failure to disclose the Management Review report

Separately, the same senior officer of the Sensitive Policing Unit raised concerns about its operation, including the handling of the main witness in the murder case. As a result a Management Review of the unit was carried out, which highlighted a number of issues which were identified as having the potential to undermine the prosecution case and were therefore disclosable to the defence. The evidence suggested the senior officer’s complaints were mentioned to prosecution counsel although there are no records of that conversation, but it is clear that the report was not disclosed to prosecutors or defence. That failure formed a significant part of a successful appeal and all defendants’ convictions were quashed in 2012.

Nine officers who were either involved in the Management Review or the handling of the Report it produced were investigated with regard to the failure to disclose.

It was suggested that all or some of the nine officers may have conspired to pervert the course of justice by taking a deliberate decision not to disclose the Review as it could undermine the prosecution case.

The Court of Appeal referred to the failure as “a very bad case of non-disclosure”. We agree. It is clear that from the submissions made to it, that the Court of Appeal concluded that there appeared to have been a “decision” made not to disclose the Report of the Management Review. However, after considering the evidence resulting from the investigation, the CPS has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prove that a decision was taken deliberately to conceal the Review. Rather than a conspiracy to conceal, the evidence suggested that there was an overall failure to disclose the report. None of the officers who could be shown to be aware of the content of the report had a clear and direct responsibility for disclosure in the murder case. In order for an individual to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice there must be evidence that the individual undertook an act tending to pervert the course of justice and evidence of an intention to do so.

We would like to make it clear that our reference to an overall failure does not imply guilt or culpable failure on the part of any individual officer and our role is strictly limited to considering criminal charges.

Criminal misconduct in Public Office

An offence of misconduct in public office is committed by a public officer who wilfully neglects to perform his duty or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in him, without reasonable excuse or justification. There must be evidence of criminality which amounts to more than just, for example, poor administration, maladministration or breaches of rules and procedures. There was insufficient evidence that any of the officers wilfully neglected their duty to disclose the document or tried to suppress it. There is insufficient evidence to establish that any of the officers had taken the deliberate decision to withhold the document, a mere failure cannot amount to misconduct unless it was wilful and in this case there was insufficient evidence to support that.

Conclusion

Therefore, having thoroughly reviewed the reports and evidence against the officers, both collectively and on an individual basis, the CPS has taken the decision that whatever criticisms may be made about the conduct of the various officers, there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction against any of them for conspiring or attempting to pervert the course of public justice. Equally, that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction resulting from the prosecution of any officer for the misconducting themselves in public office.

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. In addition this CPS decision applies only to possible criminal proceedings and not to any possible misconduct proceedings under police regulations.

 

Notes to Editors

A copy of the Court of Appeal judgement in this case is available here.

Operation Yewtree: Chris Denning pleads guilty to further offences

On 14 November 2014, Chris Denning pleaded guilty to a further 12 sexual offences committed against young boys between 1967 and 1987. This now brings the total number of offences to which he has pleaded to 41, carried out against a total of 24 young boys ranging from nine to 16-years-old. Pleas were previously entered in August this year. The remaining counts will be dealt with when Mr Denning is sentenced on 9 December 2014.

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

“The scale of Chris Denning’s child sexual abuse is truly shocking. His offending spanned 20 years and his youngest victim was aged just nine at the time of the attack.

“The compelling evidence in this case left Chris Denning with little option but to plead guilty. I am pleased that the guilty pleas mean a potentially lengthy trial has been avoided and the victims will not be required to give evidence.”

Statement from the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding Eleanor de Freitas

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders said:

"I am very saddened by the tragic death of Eleanor de Freitas. I have asked the team which dealt with this case for a full explanation which addresses all of the de Freitas family's concerns. I appreciate the family's unease which is why I am looking at this personally in order to satisfy myself of the detail surrounding all the stages of the case. I would welcome the opportunity then to meet with Eleanor's family to discuss the case and the law surrounding it. 

"Prosecuting cases of perverting the course of justice in connection with an alleged false rape allegation is rare, extremely difficult and always complex and sensitive. This case was one of the most difficult I have seen. To say any more at this stage would be inappropriate until I can answer the de Freitas family's concerns fully and directly."

 

Prep school teacher jailed for 42 child sexual offences

At Chester Crown Court today [Thursday, 6 November], Keith Cavendish-Coulson was jailed for six years and nine months after pleading guilty to 42 counts of indecent assault on boys under the age of 14, contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

Alison Mutch, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, said: “Keith Cavendish-Coulson presented himself as a friendly and approachable teacher and tutor in order to carry out a string of sexual offences against the pupils in his care.

“He used this position of authority to target young boys who trusted their teachers and were often living far away from home.   

“Most of the offences happened over a two year period between 1973 and 1975 when he indecently assaulted 24 young boys in the classrooms and dormitories of the preparatory school where he taught French. One further victim was sexually assaulted while Cavendish-Coulson was his private tutor.

“His offending has had a profound effect on his many victims. The compelling evidence in the case left Keith Cavendish-Coulson with little option but to plead guilty. I am pleased that this spared the victims from having to give evidence against him.”

John Lowe, 82, convicted of murders of Christine and Lucy Lee

An 82-year-old man who shot dead a mother and daughter at his home near Farnham, Surrey, has been convicted of their murders.

John Lowe killed 40-year-old Lucy Lee and her mother Christine Lee, 66, on Sunday, 23 February 2014. They had been providing care and assistance to Lowe after his long-term partner died in 2012. Lowe also killed four dogs at his home with the same shotgun.

Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS South East, Jaswant Narwal, said: “This case represents a terrible loss of life and our thoughts are with Lucy and Christine’s friends and family.

“The real tragedy in this case is that Christine and Lucy had been helping to look after John Lowe in recent months. After killing them, he showed no remorse for his actions and instead sought to portray himself as the victim.

“Anyone involved in this case cannot fail to have been moved by the extraordinary courage shown by Lucy Lee. On the day of the killings, she called emergency services to tell them her mother had just been shot and that, despite the clear threat to her own life, she would be going back for her. Tragically, Lowe killed her after she returned to the scene.”

ENDS

CPS statement: Man convicted for attempted murder of three sisters

Philip Spence was convicted today at Southwark Crown Court for the attempted murder of three sisters at the Cumberland Hotel on 6 April 2014.

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

“This was a truly horrific crime which displayed a shocking level of violence.

“This family were enjoying a holiday in our city when they were brutally and viciously attacked whilst they lay sleeping in their beds. Philip Spence used a hammer to try to kill the women before stealing their belongings.

“Not only were the three sisters severely injured in the attack, their children were in the room at the time and witnessed the horror of the violence.

“I would like to praise the immense courage of the victims who gave evidence in court whilst still undergoing medical treatment for their injuries and thank them for their help in bringing Spence to justice.

“Spence refused to take responsibility for his actions and despite pleading guilty to causing grievous bodily harm we did not accept that this reflected the criminality of his actions which showed a clear intent to kill. The jury agreed with this and have convicted Spence of attempted murder.

“Those who live and work in the capital, and those who visit, should be able to enjoy the city without fear of violence and the CPS is committed to working with police partners to tackle and prosecute violent crime.”

Background

Philip Spence was convicted of three counts attempted murder and conspiracy to cause aggravated burglary (with Thomas Efremi), he had previously pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary.

Thomas Efremi pleaded guilty to one count of fraud. Within hours of the aggravated burglary he used stolen bankcards to withdraw £5000. He was also convicted of a conspiracy with Philip Spence to commit aggravated burglary.

James Moss pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods. This included mobile phones, handbags and jewellery belonging to the three victims and their family.

DPP letter to The Times on RIPA legislation

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Alison Saunders, has today written to The Times concerning an article published on Wednesday 15 October 2014 in which the newspaper reported that the DPP had "defended the police's use of anti-terrorism powers to hack into journalists' records to obtain their sources." The below letter has been published in today's Times:

Sir,

Far from defending the use of RIPA to obtain journalist sources I very clearly said that such data should only be obtained where serious criminal offending is alleged (Times, 15 October).

The two cases which have been highlighted involved a part time judge deliberately perverting the course of justice for which she was jailed, and allegations of a police conspiracy against the Government; this was not about either a confidential tip off over speeding fines or the source of an embarrassing leak, both of which would have been totally inappropriate uses of RIPA in my opinion.

A free and open press is vital to our democracy and maintaining confidential sources is an important part of holding power to account.

Alison Saunders
Director of Public Prosecutions

No further action to be taken following the death of Andrew Pimlott

Following the death of Andrew Pimlott in Plymouth in April 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has determined that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute a police constable for gross negligence manslaughter or misconduct in public office.

A report submitted to the CPS by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) indicated that on 18 April 2013, police were called after reports Mr Pimlott had breached a restraining order in attending a specific address in Plymouth and had a jerry can of petrol. Two police constables attended and went to the rear garden where Mr Pimlott was seen to douse himself in petrol before appearing to strike a match. In response, one of the officers deployed his Taser and Mr Pimlott caught fire. Mr Pimlott was taken to hospital and died from the complications of severe burns on 23 April 2013. In July 2014 the IPCC submitted a file to the CPS requesting a charging decision.

In order to prosecute gross negligence manslaughter it must be shown that a duty of care was owed to the deceased, that that duty was breached, that the breach caused the death of the victim and that any breach was so bad that it should be categorised as gross negligence and therefore criminal. It is necessary to show that any acts were so serious and showed such an indifference to an obviously serious risk to life, that it amounts to a crime in law. An offence of misconduct in public office is committed by a public officer who wilfully neglects to perform his duty or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office-holder, without reasonable excuse or justification.  

Sally Walsh, a senior lawyer in the CPS Special Crime Division, said: “We carefully and thoroughly examined the evidence in this case in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The evidence suggests that this was a fast-moving incident with events unfolding suddenly and in near darkness; from the police approach to the garden to the petrol igniting the entire incident took less than 41 seconds.

“Having considered the evidence, we determined that although it could be shown that the officer owed Mr Pimlott a duty of care, there is insufficient evidence that the duty was breached. In the circumstances, we took the view that a jury would be more likely than not to accept that the officer held a reasonable and genuine fear for both Mr Pimlott’s safety and his own. Whilst we cannot know whether Mr Pimlott intended to set himself alight, seeing him douse himself in petrol and holding what appeared to be a lighted match, it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that he intended to. It appears from the evidence that the officer did the best he could in what were clearly very difficult circumstances and that he was faced with a choice of either standing back to allow Mr. Pimlott to set himself alight or taking the somewhat lesser risk of applying the Taser in an effort to stop him doing so.

“With regards to misconduct in public office, the evidence suggests that the use of a Taser in these circumstances was not prohibited by police guidelines and that he acted in a genuine attempt to save Mr Pimlott’s life and keep others safe. There is therefore insufficient evidence to show that he wilfully misconducted himself or abused the public’s trust in him.

“Since there is insufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of convicting the officer of any criminal offence arising from the circumstances of Mr Pimlott’s death, we have advised the IPCC that no further criminal action should 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. In addition this CPS decision applies only to possible criminal proceedings and not to any possible misconduct proceedings under police regulations.

“Our thoughts remain with Mr Pimlott’s family at this difficult time and we have written to them to explain our decision in detail. We met with them in September to update them on the progress of our review and we have offered to meet with them again should they so wish.”

 

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.

Former Sunday Mirror journalist charged and no further action taken against one individual

Former Sunday Mirror journalist charged with intercepting communications

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

“A file was received from the Metropolitan Police in May 2014 and the CPS has today authorised the police to summons Graham Johnson, a former Sunday Mirror journalist, to be charged with an offence of intercepting communications without legal authority, namely mobile phone voicemail messages.

“Graham Johnson will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 6th November 2014.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against Graham Johnson 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.

“This decision was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s guidelines on the public interest in cases affecting the media. We have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.”

Details of the full charge:

Graham Johnson, between 31st August 2001 and 22nd October 2001 intercepted communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely mobile phone voicemail messages, contrary to s1(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

 

One individual informed that no further action will be taken regarding conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office

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

“The CPS has today decided that no further action will be taken in relation to an individual, concerning allegations of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

“A file was received on 6 June 2014 from the Metropolitan Police. 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.

CPS Statement: Ex-MEP charged with fraud offences and misconduct in public office

Zoe Martin, of the CPS Special Crime Division said:

“The CPS has today issued charges against Ashley Mote of obtaining a money transfer by deception, fraud by false representation, false accounting, receiving the proceeds of crime and misconduct in public office. We have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

“Ashley Mote will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 3 November 2014.

“A decision has also been made that no further action will been taken in relation to a second individual who was investigated for offences of obtaining money transfer by deception, false accounting and fraud by false representation, as there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. In addition no further action will be taken against two other individuals who were investigated for offences of money laundering.

“These decisions were taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“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.”

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 full charges:

Ashley Mote

Charge 1:

Misconduct in public office, contrary to Common Law

Charge 2:

Acquiring criminal property, contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Charge 3:

Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 4:

False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 5:

Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 6:

Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 7:

False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 8:

False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 9:

Fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006

Operation Yewtree: No further action to be taken in respect of two men

The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that no further action should be taken against two men investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service as part of Operation Yewtree. The men, aged 65 and 75, were arrested on 29 October 2013 over allegations of sexual offences said to have taken place over a two year period in the early 1980s.

Baljit Ubhey, the Chief Crown Prosecutor of CPS London, said:

“Having carefully reviewed this case, we have decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute in relation to allegations of sexual offences made by two males believed to be aged between 14 and 15 at the time of the alleged offending.

“Each allegation was considered on its own merits and we have concluded that the available evidence does not offer a realistic prospect of conviction for any of the alleged offences.

“These decisions have been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and our guidance for prosecutors on cases of sexual offences. 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.

“The complainants have been informed and we will be writing to them to more fully explain our decision and offer a meeting should they wish to discuss the matter in more detail.”

The CPS received initial material from the Metropolitan Police Service regarding these allegations in February 2014. Investigative advice was provided to the police throughout 2014 and the final evidence was submitted to the CPS in September 2014.

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.