CPS News Brief

Statement on Prince Nasser of Bahrain and immunity from prosecution

Deborah Walsh, Deputy Head of Special Crime and Counter Terrorism at the CPS, said:

“In line with recent case law on this issue, we can no longer maintain our position that the Prince could have immunity.

“We have always maintained that the issues raised by this Judicial Review are academic as before the DPP can consent to any application for a private arrest warrant, there needs to be an investigation by police. The likelihood of immunity is not considered a bar to prosecution and is a matter that should be considered on a case’s individual facts and merits, after some investigation. The Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command is responsible for the investigation of all allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture, and has previously said that it would not undertake an investigation in relation to this matter for a number of reasons; the possibility of immunity was not one.

“The CPS is committed to the prosecution of war crimes and we take our responsibilities under international law very seriously. Whenever the evidence and law allows us to do so, we will vigorously pursue prosecutions through the UK courts. We have a well-established War Crimes Community Involvement Panel that consists of law enforcement, NGOs and others which has been cited internationally as an example of good practice. This meets regularly to discuss issues of concern and relevance and helps to improve our collective knowledge and understanding in this field.”

Crown Prosecution Service offers clear guidance for prosecutors on ‘revenge pornography’

The CPS has today updated its legal guidance regarding the prosecution of communications sent via social media with a clear section that explains how current legislation can be used to prosecute offences involving the malicious use of intimate media, sometimes referred to as ‘revenge pornography’.

This clarification does not signify a new approach but clearly sets out for prosecutors which laws can be used to bring these cases to court. In all cases the CPS will apply the most appropriate law which best addresses the alleged offending. It is a matter for Parliament to decide if further laws are needed or if changes need to be made to the current legislation.

A spokesperson for the CPS said,

 “No one should have to suffer the hurt and humiliation of ‘revenge pornography’ – a nasty and invasive crime that appears, anecdotally at least, to have increased as social media use has gone up.

 “The Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes these cases using a range of current laws, and we have now clarified our legal guidance to set out clearly how these cases should be brought to court.

 “Due to the very personal nature of ‘revenge pornography’ prosecutors are being asked specifically to consider the impact on the victims involved. The new guidance also makes clear that the context of each case needs to be considered alongside current guidelines to ensure that the most appropriate legislation is used when prosecuting. The public, and indeed those intent on attacking former partners in this way, can now see clearly that this is a crime that can and will be prosecuted.”

‘Revenge pornography’ is typically sexually explicit media that is publically shared online without the consent of the pictured individual and is usually uploaded by ex-partners.  The images are often accompanied by personal information including the pictured individual’s full name, links to social media profiles and address, and are shared with the intent to cause distress or harm to the individual.”

The guidance outlines:

• The issue in cases of ‘revenge pornography’ will be whether the message or communication is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false, not whether the image itself is indecent or obscene.
• Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 deals with the sending of electronic communications which are indecent, grossly offensive, threatening or false, provided there is an intention to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient.
• Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a ‘public electronic communications network’ a message that is ‘grossly offensive’ or of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing character’.
• Where there is more than one incident, or the incident forms part of a course of conduct directed towards an individual, a charge of harassment should be considered.
• Where the images may have been taken when the victim was under 18, prosecutors will consider offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978.
• In the most serious cases, where intimate images are used to coerce victims into further sexual activity, other offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will be considered.

In order to prosecute, all cases must meet the evidential stage in the Full Code Test of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and be considered to be in the public interest.

These offences would not normally be brought under the Obscene Publications Act.

We have informed the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications of this change, following their interest in the subject earlier this year. The CPS legal guidance on the prosecution of cases involving communications sent via social media were drafted specifically due to the rapid expansion of social media and can be found on www.cps.gov.uk. 

One individual informed that no further action will be taken in relation to two counts including conspiracy to intercept phone voicemail messages

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

“The CPS has today [3 October 2014] decided that no further action will be taken in relation to an individual arrested on 30 August 2012, concerning allegations of conspiracy to intercept phone voicemail messages and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

“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.

Man and wife sentenced following the sale of fraudulent bomb detectors

Samuel and Joan Tree, from Dunstable, have today been sentenced at Kingston Crown Court, following a trial at the Central Criminal Court, for an offence contrary to section 7 of the Fraud Act 2006. Samuel Tree has been sentenced to three and a half years and Joan Tree has been handed a two years suspended sentence with 300 hours community service. This is the last of four trials which relate to sales of fraudulent bomb detectors.

Elspeth Pringle, specialist prosecutor at the CPS, said:

“The deception undertaken by Samuel and Joan Tree is staggering – for many years they sold a product made in a shed in their back garden which, they claimed, could detect drugs, explosives and other substances. They even claimed it was capable of finding missing children. All of these claims were false; however Samuel Tree used whatever tactics he could to persuade his clients otherwise, resulting in the sale of these devices for hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds when in reality they cost little more than a few pounds to make.

“The severity of this deception is underlined by the fact that the Trees sold these devices, which were to be used in dangerous, high-pressure and hazardous situations, knowing that they would provide no benefit or security for the men and women using them. When in its essence, the Alpha 6 device sold and created by Samuel and Joan tree was nothing more than a plastic box with antennae on the top and some pieces of paper inside, they put many lives at risk for the sake of making a profit.”

This sentencing marks the end of the four trials which were brought against six people accused of selling fake bomb detectors.

For information:

Samuel Tree

Convicted of: Making an article for use in the course of a fraud, namely that between 14th January 2007 and 12th July 2012 at 15 Houghton Road, Dunstable made an article, namely an Alpha 6 device, knowing that it was designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud or intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, fraud. Contrary to section 7(1) of the Fraud Act 2006

Joan Tree

Convicted of: Making an article for use in the course of a fraud, namely that between 14th January 2007 and 12th July 2012 at 15 Houghton Road, Dunstable made an article, namely an Alpha 6 device, knowing that it was designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud or intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, fraud. Contrary to section 7(1) of the Fraud Act 2006

CPS Statement: Criminal extradited from Spain and jailed for non-payment of UK Confiscation Order

Martin Hickman, who was convicted in relation to the illegal sale and supply of medicinal products in 2009, has been extradited from Spain and jailed for 10 years after failure to pay a confiscation order made against him in 2012 at Southwark Crown Court. 

Nick Price, Head of CPS Proceeds of Crime said:

“Martin Hickman’s crimes were unscrupulous and greedy, putting people’s health at risk for the sake of pure profit. Having failed to pay his debt, he has now begun a ten year sentence behind bars.

“Mr Hickman’s arrest, extradition from Spain and subsequent imprisonment back in the UK should send out a clear message to criminals seeking to hide themselves and their assets abroad: if you won’t pay up, we will find you and you will go to jail.

“We would like to thank Titan, the North West Regional Organised Crime Unit and International law enforcement colleagues for their tireless work on this case.”

Background

• Hickman was prosecuted by DWP in relation to the illegal sale and supply of medicinal products. He was convicted on 06/03/09, having pleaded guilty to five counts on the Indictment, and was convicted of one further offence following a guilty plea on 16/03/09. On 08/06/09 he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. On 27/04/12 a Confiscation Order was made. DWP prosecutions were transferred to the CPS on 1 April 2012.

• Martin Hickman was jailed for 10 years following his extradition from Spain in August after failure to pay on a Confiscation Order made against him at Southwark Crown Court on 27/4/12 for £14,407,850.28.

• His Confiscation Order currently stands at £13,940,391.44 plus interest. The service of the default sentence will not expunge the debt.

• A European Arrest Warrant was issued in March this year. Mr Hickman was arrested in Spain in early July and extradited to the UK on 13 August where he was taken immediately to prison to begin his sentence.  

 

DPP publishes final standards for all prosecutors

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has today published the final version of new standards for all CPS prosecutors. This follows a consultation with the public, which demonstrated that draft interim standards published in April 2014 were largely in the right place.

Casework Quality Standards apply to all cases prosecuted by the CPS and set out the benchmarks of quality expected by the DPP in every major aspect of CPS work. The four standards also place greater emphasis on the quality of casework and replace the previous 12 Core Quality Standards. The Casework Quality Standards are:

• Victims, witnesses and communities;
• Legal decision-making;
• Casework preparation; and
• Presentation in court.

Alison Saunders said: “I am grateful to those organisations and individuals who have taken the time to respond to our public consultation - with their help I am confident that we now have a clear set of standards against which both we and the public can measure our performance.

“In particular, these standards are a very clear commitment to victims and witnesses. Our success in prosecuting criminals relies on the willingness of victims and witnesses to engage and give evidence, so it’s right that they should know what to expect from us and be able to hold us to account when necessary. That’s why, following consultation with the public, our standards now promise to protect the interests of victims in the court process, which we know can be a difficult experience.

“These are the standards for a modern and forward-looking CPS, with a focus on victims and casework quality. I’m particularly pleased that the public consultation welcomed, for example, our emphasis on identifying the proceeds of crime and ensuring that criminals do not retain any financial advantage. Such work embodies what we now expect of our public prosecutors; effective, thorough and doing all they can to serve victims and the wider public.”

 

 

Background:

The final Casework Quality Standards are available on the CPS website, along with a summary of responses from the public consultation. The initial review considered the original Core Quality Standards 1 to 10, relating to the key aspects of casework from advice to presentation. In their place, there are now four new standards.

A separate consultation in respect of the Complaints Handling and Community Engagement Quality Standards is currently ongoing and is due to conclude on Friday, 10 October 2014.

Man convicted of ‘Ponzi’ investment scheme, taking £2.3 million from 28 victims

For information: Geoffrey Langdale, from North Yorkshire, has today [Thursday 25 September 2014] been sentenced to six years at Bradford Crown Court after he was found guilty of running a ‘Ponzi’ investment scheme.

Debra Chan, Senior Crown Prosecutor in the CPS said:

“Over a period of 11 years Geoffrey Langdale abused his position as a trusted accountant while his victims, reassured by the reputation of his longstanding accountancy practice, were encouraged to invest money in his fraudulent “Ponzi” scheme.

“He fooled genuine investors by producing fraudulent documents and forging company logos to imply their money was safe. Instead of investing his clients’ money as promised, he used more than £1m to prop up his own companies including investing in a chemical company that later collapsed. As his debt spiralled out of control, he simply encouraged more and more people to invest in the scam.

“This conviction highlights Geoffrey Langdale’s dishonesty and the blatant disregard for the welfare of his clients.”

Between 2002 and 2013, Mr Langdale organised what is known as a ‘Ponzi’ investment scheme, involving 28 victims who invested various amounts of money ranging from £10,000 to £260,850. Mr Langdale told the victims that their money would be invested into an ‘umbrella’ account with high interest rates of a legitimate company which was a subsidiary of a well-known high street bank. In total, Mr Langdale received £2,333,487.57 in investments from his victims, only returning £1,150,840.59 to some of them, with a total of £1,182,646.98 still owed to the others.

Geoffrey Langdale was convicted of:

Count 1

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

Count 2

Fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006

Man to be charged over Iraqi road side bombs

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

“Following an investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service, I have today authorised charges against Anis Abid Sardar in connection to a number of road side improvised explosive devices (IEDs) recovered from the Al Anbar province of Iraq in 2007.

“It is alleged that Mr Sardar conspired to murder coalition forces operating in Iraq on or before 22 November 2007 by conspiring to cause the explosion of these IEDs. The decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. I have determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.”

Anis Abid Sardar, of North West London, will be charged with the following offences:

• One count of conspiracy to murder, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977: Anis Abid Sardar on or before 22 November 2007, within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, conspired with Sajjad Nabil Salih Al S Adnan to murder others unknown.
• One count of conspiring to cause an explosion with intent to endanger life or property contrary to section 3(1)(a) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883: Anis Abid Sardar on or before 22 November 2007, within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, unlawfully and maliciously conspired with Sajjad Nabil Salih Al S Adnan to cause by an explosive substance explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property.

Ms Walsh said:

“Anis Abid Sardar will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court tomorrow, 25 September 2014.

“May I remind all concerned that Mr Sardar has a 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. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."

For Information: The consent of the Attorney or Solicitor Generals is required for both these offences. This was granted by the Solicitor.

CPS Statement on David Griffin

Jenny Hopkins, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS in London, said:

“David Griffin, also known as Dave Lee Travis, indecently assaulted a young woman by touching her in a way that was not only deeply invasive but also against the law. We thank the jury for their careful consideration in this case and we respect all the verdicts of the court today.

“The prosecution of sexual offences is often difficult and complex, perhaps even more so when the allegations are from some years ago. We will continue to consider cases and, wherever there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest, we will work with police to build strong cases which can be put before the court.”

Decision of no further action against two journalists concerning allegations of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office

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

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

“A file was received from the Metropolitan Police Service on 23 January 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.

Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner to face no further action over alleged disclosure of sensitive information

Luke Bulpitt, a specialist prosecutor with the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said:

“In August 2014, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) asked the CPS to consider whether Olly Martins, Bedfordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), should face a charge of misconduct in public office.

“This followed an allegation that Mr Martins made an unauthorised disclosure to his partner, when they were at home, of sensitive information passed to him in his role as PCC.

“After careful consideration and a review of the evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the CPS has decided that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.

“In any case of misconduct in public office, we would have to show that any disclosure of information was serious enough to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust, particularly regarding the extent and likely consequences of the disclosure. The evidence is not sufficient to establish this.

“As a result, 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.”

 

 

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 IPCC 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.

One woman charged with encouraging or assisting suicide

For information: Emma Crossman died on 15 January 2014, having taken her own life using equipment that had allegedly been bought for her by her friend Milly Caller. The CPS has today [15 September 2014] charged Milly Caller with encouraging or assisting suicide.

Rosemary Ainslie, a senior lawyer at the CPS said:

“In July 2014 the CPS received a file concerning allegations in relation to the actions of Milly Caller, 22, from Sleaford, in the suicide of Emma Crossman, a 21 year old woman from Lincolnshire.

“Having carefully reviewed the evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the CPS has decided that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that a prosecution is in the public interest. Accordingly I have today authorised the police to charge Milly Caller with one charge of encouraging or assisting suicide in that she provided equipment to Emma Crossman with the intent of encouraging or assisting suicide.

“Milly Caller will appear before Lincoln Magistrates’ Court on 16 October 2014.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against Milly Caller will now be commenced and of her 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."

Details of the full charge:

Amelia Caller

Encouraging or assisting suicide, contrary to section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961.

On a day between 12 January 2014 and 15 January 2014 you did an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide of another person, namely Emma Crossman, in that you provided equipment to Emma Crossman, and that act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.

DPP welcomes convictions under pilot scheme of pre-recorded cross examination of victims

On September 10 2014, at Liverpool Crown Court, Jason John Wilson was convicted of eight counts of child sexual assault in a trial that heard pre-recorded cross examination of the victim. The victim’s evidence was pre-recorded as part of a pilot scheme to spare vulnerable victims the trauma of appearing in court. All witnesses under 16 years and those with a mental or physical disorder which is likely to result in their evidence being diminished are eligible for the pilot.

The conviction of Jason John Wilson follows the successful use of pre-recorded footage in three recent trials that lead to convictions.

Alison Mutch, the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Mersey-Cheshire, leads on the pilot scheme for the CPS at Liverpool Crown Court. Ms Mutch said:

“This was an appalling case of child sexual abuse, starting when the victim was just five years old. The victim showed great courage in coming forward and re-living the horrific ordeal, providing evidence that was invaluable in securing this conviction. I would also like to thank colleagues from the police and Liverpool Crown Court for their professionalism and efficiency in dealing with this case, and the prosecutors in our rape and serious sexual offences unit should be commended for their dedication and sensitivity in their preparation of this case.”

Commenting on all of the convictions secured under the pilot to date, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said:

“The early pre-recording of cross-examination in these cases has spared the victims of sexual abuse, who were already deeply distressed by their experiences, from having to re-live that incident all over again in the sometimes daunting setting of a live criminal trial. Those who have suffered sexual assault are some of the most vulnerable victims we serve as prosecutors and this pilot involves particularly young victims called to give evidence. I am pleased that, by working with colleagues across the criminal justice system and pre-recording the cross examination, we were able to secure fair trials resulting in the successful convictions of a number of sexual offenders. I look forward to seeing the results from other pilot cases around the country in the future.”

Background

Jason John Wilson of Merseyside was convicted of six counts of sexual assault of a child contrary to section 7(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, one count of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity contrary to section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and one count of assault by penetration of a child contrary to section 6(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The assaults took place between November 2005 and November 2013. The cross examination was pre-recorded on 25 June 2014 under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and then played to the jury in court at trial.

Three previous trials using pre-recorded cross examinations have successfully led to convictions under the new pilot scheme.

The details of these are outlined below:

1. A 42 year old man was convicted of sexual assault on 28 July and sentenced to nine years in jail on 1 September at Leeds Crown Court. The afore mentioned was convicted of five counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual assault by penetration relating to a girl under 13, and one count of sexual assault by penetration relating to a boy under 13, contrary to sections 7(1) and 6(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offences took place in Armley, Leeds, during February of last year and the cross examination was pre-recorded on 7 May 2014. A co-defendant is awaiting trial.
   
   
2. 35 year old Craig Bennett was convicted after trial of two counts of sexual assault on a child and one count of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment on 5 August. The trial took place at Leeds Crown Court on 28 July 2014 following the assaults on 11 or 12 October 2013. The victim’s cross examination was pre-recorded on 12 May 2014.
   
   
3. 51 year old Adrian Howard was convicted Liverpool Crown Court of 16 counts of child sexual abuse, including the rape of a girl under 13. The trial took place at Liverpool Crown Court on 30 July 2014 and the cross examination was pre-recorded on 8 May 2014.

Corporate manslaughter charge for death of crane driver

The CPS has today [Monday 15 September] announced that Baldwins Crane Hire Limited has been charged with corporate manslaughter following the death of Lindsay Easton.

On 15 August 2011 Mr Easton was driving a heavy crane down a steep road away from a Wind Farm at Scout Moor, Lancashire. During this journey it is alleged that the brakes failed. The crane crashed into an earth bank and fell from the road. The company had been carrying out work on wind turbines in the area.

Jane Wragg, specialist prosecutor in the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division of the CPS, said:

“I have carefully reviewed the evidence gathered by Lancashire Police and the Health and Safety Executive during their investigation into the tragic death of Lindsay Easton. I have concluded that Baldwins Crane Hire Limited should be charged with an offence of corporate manslaughter.

“I have also concluded that there is sufficient evidence to charge the company Baldwins Crane Hire Limited with offences under Section 2 and Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

“The first hearing will take place at Burnley Magistrates’ Court on 16 October 2014.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against Baldwins Crane Hire Ltd. have now commenced and the company has 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.

“These decisions were taken in accordance with the Code of Crown Prosecutors. 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 charges:

1. Baldwins Crane Hire Limited on the 15th day of August 2011 being an organisation, namely a corporation, because of the way in which the organisation’s activities were managed or organised, caused the death of a person, namely Lindsay Easton, contrary to section 1 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

2. Baldwins Crane Hire Limited, between the 1st day of January 2010 and the 16th day of August 2011, being an employer within the meaning of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, failed to discharge the duty imposed on it under Section 2 of the Act by failing to ensure so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of its employees including Lindsay Easton Contrary to section 33(1)(a) of that Act.

3. Baldwins Crane Hire Limited, between the 1st day of January 2010 and the 16th day of August 2011, being an employer within the meaning of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, failed to discharge the duty imposed on it under Section 3 of the Act, by failing to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that persons not in its employment who may be affected thereby were not thereby exposed to risks to their health and safety. Contrary to section 33(1)(a) of that Act.

Financial Controller steals over £788,000 from her employer to fund a lavish lifestyle buying horses and building an equestrian arena

Collette Wilson pleaded guilty to stealing £788,340 from Boxing Orange Ltd. while she worked as Financial Controller and Company Secretary.

Arslan Khan, Specialist Fraud Prosecutor at the CPS said,

“Collette Wilson was in complete control of the company’s accounts system and hid the payments she made to herself which enabled her to live a highly affluent lifestyle.

“Mrs Wilson used her corporate credit card for personal expenditure, as well as making direct payments to third parties from the company account. These payments included a total of £139,141 spent on a number of horses, £71,976 on a horse arena built at her home, a house extension worth £25,000 and a number of cars bought at a specialist car showroom, including a brand new Range Rover.

“She said that she made some of these payments as part of an informal bonus, as well as additional payments to which she felt she was entitled given she had not had a pay rise for years.

“Collette Wilson completely abused and exploited the trust and level of responsibility placed in her by her employer. Her greed knew no bounds seeing her diverting monies from her employer to enhance her personal lifestyle. She is now facing the consequences of her actions.”

Details of charge:

Collette Wilson

THEFT, contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968