CPS News Brief

Death of Jimmy Mubenga – Charging decisions following inquest

The Crown Prosecution Service has reviewed the evidence relating to the tragic death of Jimmy Mubenga in October 2010.

We had previously decided in July 2012 that no charges should be brought in relation to Mr Mubenga’s death. In accordance with a memorandum of understanding between prosecutors, coroners and the police, the case was reconsidered by the CPS following the verdict of unlawful killing at the inquest. All new evidence from the inquest was taken into account during this review.

The detainee custody officers

In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the decision now is that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Colin Kaler, Terrence Hughes and Stuart Tribelnig to be prosecuted for manslaughter.

All three defendants were employed by G4S Care and Justice Services UK Limited (G4S) as detainee custody officers at the time of Mr Mubenga’s death and were tasked with removing him from the United Kingdom to Angola. They will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 7 April 2014.

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

“We have completed a fresh review of all of the evidence relating to the death of Jimmy Mubenga, including the new evidence arising from the inquest, and decided that three men should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

“There is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute Colin Kaler, Terrence Hughes and Stuart Tribelnig.

“Criminal proceedings are now underway and the defendants 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.”

G4S Care and Justice Services UK Limited

The CPS also considered whether G4S should be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter. Because of the date and circumstances of this death, in this case the offence exists both at common law (law developed by the courts over time) and under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

To prove corporate manslaughter at common law, the CPS would require evidence capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that a ‘controlling mind’ in the corporation – such as the chief executive officer – was personally guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence.

A prosecution under the 2007 Act would require proof to the criminal standard that the way in which G4S’s activities were managed or organised was a cause of death and amounted to a gross breach of a duty of care towards the deceased. Additionally, this offence would only be made out if it could also be proved that the way in which G4S’s activities were managed or organised by its senior management was a substantial element in the gross breach.

In considering potential corporate offences by G4S, the training available to (and undertaken by) its staff has been taken into account. In accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute G4S for either offence and, due to the fact that related proceedings are now active, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

We will be writing to the family of Mr Mubenga to explain our decision making, to offer a meeting should they so wish and again offer our condolences.

Notes to editors

• The inquest jury was not asked to determine whether specific criminal offences had been committed by particular individuals. Legal advice should be sought before linking the verdict of the inquest with any individual.
• Colin Kaler is 51 and from Bedfordshire; Terrence Hughes is 53 and from Hampshire; Stuart Tribelnig is 38 and from Surrey.
• The defendants are charged with unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter as alternatives. There is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction with regards to both offences and a jury will decide whether either offence was committed.

Royal Barnes jailed for inciting terrorism overseas

Royal Barnes was today jailed at the Old Bailey for five years and four months for inciting terrorism overseas, contrary to section 59 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and three counts of disseminating terrorist publications, contrary to section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006. He pleaded guilty to these offences on 12 February 2014. His wife, Rebekah Dawson, had previously pleaded guilty to three counts of disseminating terrorist publications and was today jailed for 20 months.

Mari Reid, of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Counter Terrorism Division, said:

“While the whole country was unified in grief and horror in the wake of Fusilier Lee Rigby’s death last year, Royal Barnes and his wife sought to take advantage of the situation to promote their extremist views. Royal Barnes went further, using the savage attack on Fusilier Rigby to encourage others, via Facebook, to murder British, French and American soldiers.

“These were not throwaway comments from a thoughtless individual, but the hardened beliefs of an extremist.

“We pride ourselves in Britain on allowing the right to free speech to flourish. But the vile views posted online by Royal Barnes and Rebekah Dawson justified and glorified terrorist attacks, and tried to foster hatred in our communities.” 

CPS decisions in Operation Sacristy – investigation into Cleveland Police and Cleveland Police Authority

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, said:

“Operation Sacristy was a wide-ranging and detailed investigation into suspected criminal offences in connection with the administration of Cleveland Police and Cleveland Police Authority.

“Following their thorough and professional investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service has received detailed reports and a substantial quantity of evidence from the Operation Sacristy investigation team. It is right that this case was passed to us to determine whether or not criminal charges should be brought and the reports and the evidence underlying them have been considered in great detail by senior lawyers within the Special Crime Division of the CPS, overseen by Malcolm McHaffie, Deputy Head of that division. We have also sought advice from both an experienced junior counsel specialising in fraud and corruption and by Queen’s Counsel.

“The allegations related to the procurement process surrounding contracts procured by Cleveland Police and the relationship between the contracted organisations, the police force and police authority; expenses claimed by senior members of Cleveland Police and Police Authority; the remuneration of a senior police officer and redundancy payments made to two individuals. The CPS considered whether or not six suspects should be prosecuted in relation to these allegations, as well as considering the peripheral roles of two further suspects. Three additional suspects are the subject of an ongoing investigation and we have therefore not made any decision in respect of them.

“This 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.

“A realistic prospect of conviction means that a conviction is more likely than not.  In considering whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the test makes it plain that it is not just the prosecution evidence or approach which should be considered, but also the likely defence case and prosecutors must consider all the evidence carefully.  As a matter of law, a prosecution for corruption, fraud or for the criminal offence of misconduct in public office requires more than, for example, poor administration, maladministration or breaches of rules and procedures.

“Having thoroughly reviewed the reports and evidence we have determined that, whatever criticisms may be made about the conduct of the various suspects, including any police discipline findings, the available evidence does not give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction in connection with conduct relating to the administration of Cleveland Police and Cleveland Police Authority.  There can therefore be no prosecution of the individuals considered. 

• In relation to the contracts procured by Cleveland Police that were considered by the CPS, record keeping and compliance with procedures was often poor, and we have concluded the evidence does not show the necessary direct causal links between the awarding of contracts (or allegations of advantageous treatment) and any alleged rewards and inducements offered or received. There was also evidence that would clearly undermine the allegation

• In relation to the cost of trips undertaken by senior staff, the evidence is not sufficient to prove dishonesty to a criminal standard, which would be required for any prosecution of fraud by abuse of position. There was also insufficient evidence to show a wilful breach of established rules or regulations, which would be required to prosecute for an offence of misconduct in public office.

• We do not consider that there is sufficient evidence of criminal offending in relation to the remuneration of a senior police officer. The evidence indicates this remuneration was openly supported by members of the police authority.

• Finally, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute two individuals who received redundancy payments from Cleveland Police Authority. It was alleged that these individuals orchestrated increases to their own redundancy payments. The evidence indicates that both individuals acted openly, and there is insufficient evidence to prove either dishonesty or a knowing breach of rules or regulations on the part of the recipients, which would be required for a prosecution.

“All of the conduct has been considered collectively as well as on an individual basis. However, for any prosecution to be brought, including for any potential conspiracy or corruption offences, there must be sufficient evidence to demonstrate clear, defined instances of criminality. For the reasons set out above, we do not consider this to be the case and have advised the police that no further action should be taken in relation to the matters set out above either individually or collectively.

“In relation to two relatively minor allegations over expenses the CPS has also decided that a prosecution should not take place.”

 

Operation Globe: Woman charged with indecent images offences

A 38-year-old woman has been charged with offences relating to the possession and distribution of indecent images.

Suzanne Thomas, Senior Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service Wales, said:

“As part of a wider police investigation, the CPS was asked by South Wales Police to review evidence files relating to alleged offences committed by Joanne Mjadzelics.

“I have reviewed this evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Joanne Mjadzelics with four counts of possession of an indecent image, two counts of distributing an indecent image and one count of encouraging another to distribute an indecent image.

“Accordingly, I have authorised South Wales Police to charge Ms Mjadzelics with these offences and she has been bailed to appear before Cardiff Magistrates’ Court on 21 March.

“May I remind all concerned that Joanne Mjadzelics 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.”

Notes to Editors:

Joanne Mjadzelics has been charged with:

• Four counts of possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4), contrary to Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offences dated between 7 May 2011 and 16 May 2011)

• Two counts of distributing an indecent image of a child (level 1), contrary to Section 1 (1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (offences dated 30 September 2011)

• One count of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence of distributing and indecent image of a child, contrary to Section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (offence dated between 9 May 2011 and 17 May 2011)

The full charges are set out as follows:

1. On the 7th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

2. On the 8th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

3. On the 8th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

4. On the 16th May 2011 you were in possession of an indecent image of a child (level 4) Contrary to S.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

5. Between the 9th May 2011 and the 17th May 2011 you did an act, namely asked Ian Watkins to send you an indecent image of a child, which was capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an either way offence, namely distributing an indecent image of a child, believing that the offence would be committed and that your act would encourage or assist in its commission. Contrary to S.45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007

6. On the 30th September 2011 you distributed an indecent image of a child (level 1) Contrary to S.1 (1)(b) Protection of Children Act 1978

7. On the 30th September 2011 you distributed an indecent image of a child (level 1) Contrary to S.1 (1)(b) Protection of Children Act 1978

CPS statement: Conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office charge

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

“The CPS has today, 28 February, authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Simon Quinn with one count of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office between 1 November 2000 and 30 January 2011.

“Mr Quinn will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 10 March 2014.

“Criminal proceedings have now commenced and this defendant has 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.”

 

Charge:

SIMON QUINN, between 1 November 2000 and 31 January 2011 conspired together with journalists and other persons unknown to commit misconduct in a public office

Contrary to section 1 Criminal Law Act 1977.

DPP seeks public views on bringing non-recent cases to court - where a nominal penalty is likely

The Director of Public Prosecutions has today instructed prosecutors not to dismiss complaints about crimes allegedly committed decades ago just because of the lapse in time of reporting, in a shift of focus towards ensuring potential victims have their day in court.

Alison Saunders is asking Crown Prosecution Service lawyers to carefully consider the impact of the alleged offending on the victim concerned, as well as the views of the victim on whether bringing a prosecution will help them come to terms with what they say happened to them.

Previously, the length of time passed and the fact that an offender may only receive a nominal penalty could have dissuaded prosecutors from charging a non-recent case as they may have considered it not in the public interest.

New legal guidance is now in force in relation to cases where a nominal penalty is likely to be passed, often because an offender has been prosecuted and sentenced for similar offending previously. The Director is asking for public views on the approach for the next three months. This guidance will also be applied immediately to cases currently being considered by the joint CPS/ACPO National Child Sexual Abuse Panel.

The new approach requires prosecutors to consider that “the impact over time might have become greater and led to adverse effects on the victim’s physical or mental health and their circumstances in general. A prosecution, especially for a more serious non recent offence may help the victim through the offender being brought to justice even if the courts are likely to only impose a nominal penalty. An admission or finding of guilt may help the victim come to terms with the offence committed against them.”

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, said the guidance makes clear that a sense of justice for the victim is a crucial factor for prosecutors to consider:

“I want potential victims of crime to know that it doesn’t matter how long ago a crime is alleged to have been committed, we will take it seriously and we will take the views of the victims, or their families where appropriate, into account when deciding if we should prosecute.

“Of course, where the most serious offences are being alleged it is nearly always in the public interest to prosecute, and the evidential test remains the same - only those cases where there is sufficient evidence will be considered for prosecution. But whereas previously we have thought that the passage of time in certain cases lessened the public interest in prosecuting, that is not the case anymore. We will consider cases in the same way be they 30 days or 30 years old. I am determined that victims of these crimes get their day in court, where appropriate.”

The guidance also reminds prosecutors that ancillary orders should not necessarily be considered as a nominal penalty and therefore where they are likely following conviction, it may be in the public interest to bring a prosecution.

These include (but are not restricted to):

• Disqualification from working with children
• Compensation orders for victims
• Sexual offences prevention orders
• Financial reporting orders
• Deportation orders

Alison Saunders continued:

“I want the public’s views on this shift in approach, which I believe is necessary, not only for new complainants bravely coming forward for the first time, but also because we are seeing cases coming forward to the joint CPS ACPO child sexual abuse panel for review, where the allegations are in relation to offending some years ago.

“Victims may not have come forward in the past due to a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system, or for many other reasons, but this is changing. The passage of time is not a barrier to prosecution and I hope this guidance will give prosecutors the tools to help us get justice for victims who may have been living with the trauma of the past offending for many decades.

“I urge all those with an interest in tackling these crimes to respond to the consultation.”

The guidance has been published for consultation on the CPS website and can be found here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/consultations/public_interest_cases_consultation_index.html

Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale sentenced for the murder of Lee Rigby

Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were today jailed for life at the Old Bailey. In sentencing, the court applied Section 30 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which makes provision for certain mainstream offences to be considered as having a terrorism connection. Section 30(2) imposes a mandatory requirement on the court to decide whether an offence has a terrorist connection and if, having heard from the parties, it decides that it does it must then treat it as an aggravating factor (s.30(4)).

Sue Hemming, Head of Special Crime and Counter Terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale revelled in one of the most appalling terrorist murders I have seen whilst head of counter terrorism at the CPS.

“Not only was the attack brutal and calculated, it was also designed to advance extremist views. As a soldier, Fusilier Lee Rigby was targeted in a clear act of revenge, deliberately carried out in full view of members of the public for maximum impact.

“Under the law, terrorism is committed by a defined act designed to influence a Government, the public or an NGO for the purpose of advancing a religious, political, ideological or racial cause. This attack was always going to fail in that purpose as it served only to bring people together in shock, sympathy and solidarity.

“In December, the two defendants were convicted of a savage murder. Following strong argument from the prosecution, they have today been sentenced for carrying out that murder during an act of terrorism.

“I know the court process has been particularly distressing for Lee Rigby’s family. I hope they can take some small comfort from the sentences imposed today and can begin to move on.”

Eight charged with offences of misconduct in public office

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

“Following receipt of two separate investigation files from the Metropolitan Police, the CPS has today authorised the following charges.

File relating to ten individuals received on 18 October 2013:

“The CPS has authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Tom Wells, Neil Millard, Reggie Nunkoo, Mark Blake and Rosemary Collier, and to summons Brandon Malinsky and Graham Brough, for offences of misconduct in public office.

“The CPS has decided that there is insufficient evidence in relation to three other individuals who have been informed they face no further action.

File relating to four individuals received on 4 November 2013:

“The CPS has authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Sam Azouelos with one count of misconduct in public office between 3 July 2006 and 30 April 2010.

“The CPS has decided that there is insufficient evidence in relation to three other individuals who have been informed they face no further action.

“All defendants will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 10 March 2014.

“Criminal proceedings have now commenced and these defendants 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.”

Charges:

1. Tom Wells and Mark Blake between 27th January 2008 and 17th December 2010 conspired together to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to s 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

2. Graham Brough and Reggie Nunkoo between 22nd January 2009 and 14th January 2010 conspired together to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to s 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

3. Neil Millard, Reggie Nunkoo and Brandon Malinsky between 13th September 2010 and 23rd February 2011 conspired together to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to s 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

4. Tom Wells between 2nd March 2010 and 30th April 2010 conspired together with a public official to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to s 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

5. Tom Wells and Neil Millard between 22nd March 2010 and 9th March 2011 conspired together and with others to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to s 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

6. Neil Millard and Rosemary Collier between 24th November 2010 and 23rd December 2010 conspired together to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to s 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

--------

1. Between the 3rd July 2006 and the 30th April 2010, Sam Azouelos being a public officer, namely a Metropolitan Police Officer, and acting as such, without reasonable excuse or justification, wilfully misconducted himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in that office, Contrary to Common Law.

DPP: We will continue supporting victims of sexual abuse and bring appropriate cases to court

This time last year the Crown Prosecution Service had just published an explanation of the mistakes made in the decisions not to charge Jimmy Savile. These showed a culture that had let down not only his victims, but many others who had not been listened to, believed, or given the chance to have a jury hear their case. I felt those mistakes keenly because I became a prosecutor 25 years ago to help victims to see justice being done.

That review heralded a much- needed rethink of our approach to older cases of sexual assault and rape — one that must continue. It did not represent a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction. To those who say recent high-profile acquittals show that police and prosecutors are overcompensating for past failings, I say quite simply that we are not. If we took to court only cases where, on the papers, we were certain of a conviction, we would rightly be accused of being over-cautious. Justice can only be done if prosecutors remain independent and fair, regardless of who a defendant might be.

Rape and sexual assaults are some of the hardest cases to prosecute. Our conviction rate for rape has increased to just over 60 per cent, while for all cases taken to court it is more than 80 per cent, highlighting the difficulty with rape and sexual offences. Often there are no witnesses, it comes down to one person’s word against another; the accuser was in a relationship with the accused; and, of course, not every accused person is guilty. We consider these cases very carefully, so many do not get to court.

As prosecutors we rigorously apply the same test to the evidence in every criminal case before taking it to court. That does not guarantee a conviction, but means that we have decided that a jury should hear the evidence and that the defendant gets the opportunity to challenge it. Where there are several allegations each must pass the same test. We do not use the number of possible offences as an indicator of strength, but look at each individually. A decision to prosecute cases together allows a jury to consider an alleged pattern of offending and spares the defendant from multiple trials. It is absolutely not an attempt to strengthen a case.

Our job is not to decide innocence or guilt. We filter out cases where the evidence is too weak, but where there is sufficient evidence, we must let the jury do its job. These decisions are not taken lightly, but the prosecutor does not have the benefit of testing the evidence in the way the trial process rightly allows.

Juries have a much harder task than prosecutors for they must be sure of guilt: logic and justice dictate that there will be both acquittals and convictions. That task is even harder when many years have passed as there may be no forensic evidence and little corroborative evidence.

Some may ask why the victim remained silent for so many years, but there can be many reasons for this. They can often feel shame, even though the shame is not theirs to feel. They can feel the system is against them and be reluctant to expose to strangers intimate details they would prefer to forget. Who can blame them? Even with the approach now being taken by the police and CPS, including much better support, the trial process is difficult and can be deeply invasive and personal.

So long as our criminal justice system is working effectively, we will continue to see acquittals in these types of cases. But we are also seeing convictions. Up and down the country cases of non-recent sexual abuse and sexual assault are resulting in significant jail sentences. I use the term “non-recent” rather than “historic” because for victims the impact remains to this day.

Let me give you a few examples: a 40-year-old former teacher is serving 12 years for offences dating back 14 years after being convicted at Swindon Crown Court. In Leicester a defendant was sentenced to 18 years for sexual offences going back almost 20 years. A 14-year sentence was passed at Maidstone Crown Court for offences from the 1960s. In December another former teacher was jailed by Lewes Crown Court for offences between 1964 and 1976.

Should these prosecutions have taken place? Of course. Parliament agrees, as it has set no time limit on bringing rape and sexual offence cases, as it has for other offences. The public would be horrified if we did not prosecute because a complaint came many years after the event.

It used to be that if a rape victim wore a short skirt her credibility was undermined. Thankfully we have moved on. Now we must be careful not to establish new myths that victims come forward only for financial or other motives. I believe that most complainants have heard that they will finally be treated with the respect they deserve. That remains the case and I will do my utmost to ensure that we continue to support them and bring their cases to court wherever possible.

Alison Saunders is the Director of Public Prosecutions

This article originally appeared in the Times on Thursday 20 February 2014

Misconduct in public office charge

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

“The CPS has today authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Timothy Edwards with one count of misconduct in public office between 31 March 2008 and 1 July 2011.

“Mr Edwards will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 10 March 2014.

“Criminal proceedings have now commenced and this defendant has 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.”

Charge:

Between the 31st March 2008 and the 1st July 2011, Timothy Edwards being a public officer, namely a Metropolitan Police Officer, and acting as such, without reasonable excuse or justification, wilfully misconducted himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in that office, Contrary to Common Law.

Nabeel Hussain charged over passport fraud

Rebecca Mundy, specialist prosecutor for the CPS Counter Terrorism Division, said:

“Following an investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have today authorised charges against Nabeel Hussain and Michael Diamantis in connection with the alleged fraudulent use of a passport.

“Nabeel Hussain was arrested at Stansted Airport on 23 September 2013 where it is alleged he was attempting to take a flight out of the country on a passport that was not his. The charge is that Nabeel Hussain had in his possession a UK passport with the intention of using it to establish personal information about himself, which he knew or believed to be false, namely that it was his name on the ticket for the flight. This offence is contrary to section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010.

“It is also alleged that Michael Diamantis provided the means for Nabeel Hussain to leave the country by purchasing a plane ticket in another name. He has been charged with fraud by false representation, contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

“This decision has been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and that it is in the public interest to do so.

“Nabeel Hussain and Michael Diamantis will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 20 February 2014.

"May I remind all concerned that Nabeel Hussain and Michael Diamantis have 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."

Maintenance worker guilty of gross negligence manslaughter

Mark Auty, Specialist Prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service Special Crime Division, said:

“This terrible incident was caused by Robert Warner removing a glass panel from a fourth floor walkway of a residential apartment block.

“In order to replace a damaged panel in the garden area of the apartments, he deliberately removed a panel from a less obvious place, leaving an unprotected gap through which two-year-old Ryaheen Banimuslem tragically fell to her death.

“Robert Warner took no steps to prevent access to the gap in the panels and did nothing to warn others of the danger. Although he did not intend to cause the death of a child, today’s verdict has found that it is because of his gross negligence, and the obvious dangers he created, that Ryaheen is no longer with us.

“Our thoughts are with Ryaheen’s family at this time.”

Man convicted of £1.3m 'ponzi scheme' fraud

Matthew Ames has today been found guilty of two counts of fraudulent trading following a trial at The Old Bailey. Ames was the sole director of two companies which were found to have been operating a large scale ‘ponzi scheme’, defrauding investors out of more than £1.35m over a three year period.

Mr Ames set up two companies, Forestry for Life and The Investors’ Club, with the sole purpose of defrauding investors for personal profit; both companies claimed to invest money in teak tree plantations that generated carbon credits, which could then be traded for profit. Mr Ames’ method was to create an enticing prospectus which offered high and regular returns for investors, a good exit strategy should they need their capital back and the added attraction that they would be investing ethically and helping the environment. In truth there was no investment by the companies, simply the use of the monies to pay company expenses and support Ames’ lifestyle.

Specialist fraud lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service, Antony Swift, said:

“Matthew Ames was a devious and conniving fraudster with no regard for his victims. He seemed to revel in his ability to exploit others for personal profit, and had no shame in spending his ill-gotten gains in an extravagant and ostentatious fashion.

“Out of the £1.6m that was invested across both companies, only £250,000 was ever returned to investors. The rest went directly into the pocket of Matthew Ames, funding his profligate spending habits. Among the extravagant purchases made by Mr Ames with other people’s money were £7,000 spent renting a villa on the Caribbean island of St Vincent as well as a substantial payment to fund the long-term hire of a Lamborghini.

“Any employees who questioned the legitimacy of Mr Ames’ companies quickly had their employment terminated, showing that Mr Ames would stop at nothing to try to ensure his fraudulent activity would continue undetected. Indeed, at the time of his arrest, with his existing businesses no longer attracting investment, Mr Ames was in the process of setting up a new company, the Carbon Neutral Business Directory.

“This case is very clear evidence that fraud is not a victimless crime; it is a crime that has a significant impact on victims whether they are individuals, businesses or the taxpayer. We are pleased to see that justice has been done for Matthew Ames’ many victims today.”

Men Convicted in Joanne Dennehy Murder Case

Two men accused of helping triple murderer Joanne Dennehy have been convicted today of multiple offences at Cambridge Crown Court.

Chris McCann, Head of the CPS East of England Complex Casework Unit, said:

“Today’s guilty verdicts prove that the two defendants were willing assistants in these murders and that they were not acting under duress, as they tried to claim. Both men willingly assisted Joanne Dennehy in disposing of the bodies of her three victims and in covering up the crimes she had committed.”

Dennehy pleaded guilty in November 2013 to killing Lukasz Slaboszewski, John Chapman and Kevin Lee, whose bodies were found in ditches in the Peterborough area in March and April 2013. She also admitted the attempted murders of Robin Bereza and John Rogers in Hereford.

Gary Stretch – also known as Gary Richards – was found guilty of the attempted murders of Mr Bereza and Mr Rogers and of three charges of preventing the lawful and decent burial of a dead body.

Leslie Layton was convicted of one count of perverting the course of justice and two counts of preventing the lawful and decent burial of a dead body. A third man, Robert Moore, pleaded guilty to two charges of assisting an offender at an earlier hearing.

Mr McCann said:

“Stretch, Layton and Moore were in the thrall of triple-murderer Joanne Dennehy. They revelled in bringing suffering and misery upon their victims and showed no remorse for their atrocious acts. The fact that Leslie Layton photographed one of the deceased victims is testament to the warped nature of these crimes and those that committed them.

“I would like to thank Mr Bereza and Mr Rogers for giving evidence in this trial and reliving what must have been a terrible experience for them.

“I hope the two victims and the families of Lukasz Slaboszewski, John Chapman and Kevin Lee can take some comfort from the fact that the perpetrators of these crimes have been brought to justice and will be punished for what they have done.”

Charging decision in the Claire Tiltman case

Nigel Pilkington, Head of the Complex Casework Unit for the Crown Prosecution Service South East said:

“In November 2012 I received a file of evidence from Kent Police relating to the murder of Claire Tiltman on 18 January 1993.

“The investigation by the police has been a lengthy and complex one. Following further investigation, my review of all the evidence in the case has now been completed. I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and that it is in the public interest to prosecute Colin Ash-Smith, 45, for the murder of Claire Tiltman on 18 January 1993 in Greenhithe, Kent.

“Mr Ash-Smith will appear at Maidstone Magistrates’ Court on 28 February 2014.

"May I remind all concerned that Colin Ash-Smith 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."

Senior investigating officer Detective Superintendent Rob Vinson, from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate Cold Case Team, said:

“Claire Tiltman’s unsolved death is one of the longest-running cases for Kent Police and has remained in the forefront of the minds of investigating officers for over two-decades. Colin Ash-Smith is now to be brought before a court following our investigations and subsequent consultation with the CPS.”