CPS News Brief

Airline worker found guilty of terrorism offences

Rajib Karim, a software engineer for British Airways (BA), was found guilty today at Woolwich Crown Court of involvement in preparing a “chilling plan” to blow up a passenger plane. Colin Gibbs, counter terrorism lawyer for the CPS, said:

“Rajib Karim’s deep determination to plan terror attacks whatever the cost was frightening.

“Since his arrival in the UK in 2006, he was keen to be on the frontline of terrorism activities working on behalf of the proscribed organisation Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB). A year later, he found a position as a software engineer for BA, which the prosecution said he considered the perfect job, giving an opportunity sooner or later to fulfil his deadly objective.”

The jury heard how in one of his encrypted communications Karim had said:

“From the moment I entered this country my niyah (purpose) was to do something for the deen (for the faith), it was not to make a living here and start enjoying life. I got the BA job against all odds and really felt it was help from Allah.”

Mr Gibbs said:

“His agenda led him to get in touch in late 2009 with Anwar al- Awlaki, an extremist cleric, based in Yemen who supported the killing of innocent people. As you would expect, it did not take long for the cleric to contact the defendant when he heard that Rajib Karim was a BA employee.”

As a computer expert, Karim had put layers of sophisticated software in place on his computer designed to conceal all his correspondence with his brother and al-Awlaki. Mr Gibbs said:

“This correspondence was recovered after a thorough forensic analysis by the police.

“It revealed that Karim had clearly upped his game. The evidence showed that he was plotting with the cleric to use his job at BA to kill hundreds of innocent people. They also discussed his potential to sabotage BA servers to cause disruption to flights, which would have resulted in a major financial loss.

“The most chilling element of this case is probably the fact that Karim tried to enrol as cabin crew and anyone can imagine how horrific the consequences of this could have been, had he succeeded.

“Rajib Karim had already accepted that he had been involved in terrorist activities as he pleaded guilty before the trial started to charges that relate to the production of a video for a terrorist organisation; fundraising; and offering himself and encouraging others to volunteer for terrorist operations abroad as well as possession of a document containing details of the manufacture of constituent parts of improvised explosive devices.

“It was our task to show to the jury the deeper extent to which he had been involved in such activity and that he only stayed in this country in order to commit an act of terrorism.

“This prosecution shows that the CPS is committed to prosecuting to the full extent of the law those who would use terror to try and achieve their aims - whatever their motivation and the perceived justification.”

• Rajib Karim was found guilty of four counts of engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorists acts, contrary to section 5 (1) of the Terrorism Act 2006. He pleaded guilty before the trial to an offence of fund-raising for the purposes of terrorism (section 15(3) Terrorism Act 2000), possessing a record of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism (section 58(1)(b) Terrorism Act 2000) and three further offences of engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts.

CPS decision on Atherstone fire deaths

Three Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service managers will face charges of manslaughter by gross negligence for the deaths of four firefighters in a warehouse in Atherstone-on-Stour in 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has decided.

In addition, Warwickshire County Council will face a charge of failing to ensure the health and safety at work of its employees, under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Ian Reid, John Averis, Ashley Stephens and Darren Yates-Badley tragically lost their lives in a fire at the premises of Wealmoor (Atherstone) Ltd on 2 November 2007.

Michael Gregory, reviewing lawyer in the CPS Special Crime Division, said:

“Following a thorough investigation by Warwickshire Police and the Health and Safety Executive, I have reviewed the evidence in this case very carefully and I have decided that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Paul Simmons, Adrian Ashley and Timothy Woodward with gross negligence manslaughter.

“Mr Simmons and Mr Ashley were Watch Managers and Mr Woodward was a Station Manager at the time of the fire, but they all acted as incident commanders before, during and after their colleagues were sent into the burning building. In that role they were responsible for making the operational decisions while their colleagues tried to put out the fire.

“I have also decided that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction against Warwickshire County Council for failing to protect the health and safety of its employees and that it is in the public interest to prosecute.

“I send my sincere condolences to the families of these four men who died in such terrible circumstances.”

Nine other individuals, who were investigated by Warwickshire Police, have been told that there was insufficient evidence to take any action against them.

The defendants will appear at Leamington Spa Magistrates' Court on 1 April 2011.

• The CPS provided advice to Warwickshire Police and the Health and Safety Executive during the course of their investigations. Warwickshire Police passed a file of evidence to the CPS in August 2010 and submitted an outstanding expert report at the end of October 2010. The CPS received further expert advice at the end of January 2011, and received advice from a Queen’s Counsel on 14 February 2011 before reaching its decision.

• The CPS has not received any evidence from the police relating to any suspects for deliberately starting the fire.

• The decision whether any prosecutions should be brought under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 is one for the Health and Safety Executive.

CPS Diary – Week of 28 February

Monday 28 February

• The jury in the Rajib Karim case (a former British Airways employee charged with terrorism offences) will continue considering its verdict at Woolwich Crown Court.

Tuesday 1 March

• The trial of Delroy Grant, the so-called Night Stalker, is listed to start at Woolwich Crown Court. Grant faces 29 charges for a series of sexual offences and burglaries between 1992 and 2009. We expect case management and the jury swearing-in to take two days, so we should open our case on Thursday morning.

• Stephen Lennon, the leader of the English Defence League, will appear at West London Magistrates’ Court for a first hearing for two public order offences. The offences relate to his alleged behaviour on Armistice Day last year.

• The trial of Christopher Grady is due to start at Worcester Crown Court. Grady is accused of murdering his daughter and attempting to murder his son by driving his car into the River Avon in February 2010.

Wednesday 2 March

• Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, will be giving a lecture on disability and the criminal justice system at the University of Sussex.

Friday 4 March

• Allison Cox, who was employed by Ann Summers chief executive Jacqueline Gold as a nanny, will be sentenced for administering poison.

Merseyside police officer charged with misconduct in public office

A Merseyside police officer has been charged today with two offences of misconduct in public office and eight offences under the Data Protection Act. Mark Auty, reviewing lawyer from the CPS Special Crime Division, said:

“PC John Forrester has today been charged with two offences of misconduct in public office, one for engaging in sexual activity with a member of the public in 2008, and one for harassing and attempting to have sexual contact with another member of the public in 2009. The offences are alleged to have occurred at the complainants’ homes, while PC Forrester was on duty.

“In addition, PC Forrester is charged with eight offences under the Data Protection Act for knowingly or recklessly obtaining personal data relating to three females in 2010. The prosecution’s case is that he had no legitimate reason for accessing information about those people.

“This decision by the CPS follows a careful review of the evidence, which was gathered in an investigation by Merseyside Police.”

PC Forrester is a uniformed patrol officer for Merseyside Police. He will appear in Liverpool City Magistrates' Court on Friday 11 March 2011 at 09.45am.

• Misconduct in public office is a common law offence and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

• The maximum fine for s55 Data Protection Act (knowingly or recklessly obtaining personal data) in the Magistrates Court is the statutory maximum; the fine is unlimited in the Crown Court.

Extradition and the appeal process

Following the district judge’s decision, either party can appeal to the High Court provided they lodge the appeal within seven days. This is an automatic right of appeal and the High Court must hear the case. When the appeal is heard is up to the court, but there is normally a wait of at least a few months.

One or two senior judges hear the appeal. Their decision ends domestic proceedings unless:

The High Court certifies there is a point of law of general public importance and
The Supreme Court grants leave to appeal

The appeal would then be heard by the Supreme Court. If the High Court refuses to certify a point of law then neither side can appeal against nor judicially review its decision. They also cannot ask the Supreme Court to consider an application for leave to appeal if a point of law has not been certified.

The parties have no further avenues of appeal within the UK if the High Court refuses to certify or, if it does certify and leave is granted, after the Supreme Court has made its decision. If the decision of the UK courts is not to extradite then there will be no extradition.

If the extradition is proceeding following the UK appeal process, the individual facing extradition can ask the European Court of Human Rights to consider if their rights are being infringed by the United Kingdom’s actions. Like the Supreme Court, leave to appeal must first be granted by the European Court. How long it takes to reach this decision or to hear the appeal is decided by the court.

CPS Diary - Week of 21 February

Tuesday 22 February

• Terence Brown’s trial begins at Winchester Crown Court with legal argument. The trial is due to open on Wednesday. He is charged with collecting information likely to be useful for terrorism, including the Anarchist’s Cookbook.

Wednesday 23 February

• Emdadur Choudhury and Mohammad Haque will stand trial at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a public order offence in relation to the burning of a poppy wreath on Armistice Day last year.

• The Court of Appeal will hear George Davis' appeal against his conviction in 1975 for robbery. He was later released from prison by the Home Secretary but the conviction was never quashed. The case was referred to the court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Thursday 24 February

• District Judge Howard Riddle will give his judgment at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court on whether Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden.

Friday 25 February

• Review hearing at the Old Bailey for the case of Desai and Others, the men charged with terrorism offences over Christmas. It may be decided to move this hearing to another date, so please check our blog again towards the end of next week.

CPS Update - Friday 18 February

• CPS Humberside offered no evidence this morning at Grimsby Crown Court against William Hippsley, who had been charged with causing the death by careless driving of his wife. Mr Hippsley was driving a Toyota Prius at the time of the incident and the judge stopped his trial in March last year pending further reports. Barbara Petchey, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Humberside, explained the decision:

“The decision to charge William Hippsley in this case was taken after very careful consideration of both the evidence and the public interest. This was a difficult and sensitive decision owing to the tragic circumstances in which Mr Hippsley lost his wife. This case has been subject to extensive review of emerging evidence over a long period of time and today we have offered no evidence on the charge of causing death by careless driving.

“The evidence in this case of poor driving below the acceptable standard was, and remains, sufficient for a realistic prospect of conviction. As our policy on bad driving makes clear, the public interest will normally require that a prosecution takes place where a death has resulted from bad driving. When we reviewed this case originally, we decided it was in the public interest to prosecute this case in order to protect the safety of other road users.

“Mr Hippsley denied responsibility and in his interview with the police referred to reports of concerns about the car. The car was examined by a number of experts and no defects were found, so it was decided the prosecution should go ahead. Mr Hippsley’s trial last March was stopped by the judge pending further reports.

“Our decision to stop the case today in no way represents any kind of concession in relation to the evidence but is a decision taken following discussions between the prosecution, defence and the trial judge on whether there was an alternative to prosecution in this case. As a result, Mr Hippsley has now taken and passed a medical examination and an extended driving re-test to meet the required standard of the DVLA. We are satisfied therefore that our obligation to the public in protecting other road users is met and that a prosecution is no longer required in the public interest.”

Cotswold Geotech convicted of first corporate manslaughter charge under new act

COTSWOLD GEOTECH CONVICTED OF FIRST CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE UNDER NEW ACT

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings has today become the first company to be convicted of the new offence of corporate manslaughter.

Alex Wright was 27-years-old when he died on 5 September 2008. He was a geologist for Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings and was investigating soil conditions in a deep trench on a development plot in Stroud when it collapsed and killed him.

Kate Leonard, reviewing lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Special Crime Division, said:

“Alex Wright was a young man, full of promise. His death is a tragedy for all those who loved him and would never have happened if Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings had properly protected him.

“I hope that this conviction offers his family some sense of justice. I send them my sincere condolences once again.”

The CPS told the court that Mr Wright was left working alone in the 3.5 metre-deep trench to ‘finish-up’ when the company director left for the day. The two people who owned the development plot decided to stay at the site as they knew Mr Wright was working alone in the trench. About 15 minutes later they heard a muffled noise and then a shout for help.

While one of the plot-owners called the emergency services, the other one ran to the trench where he saw that a surge of soil had fallen in and buried Mr Wright up to his head. He climbed into the trench and removed some of the soil to enable Mr Wright to breathe. At that point, more earth fell so quickly into the pit that it covered Mr Wright completely and, despite the plot owner’s best efforts, Mr Wright died of traumatic asphyxiation.

The prosecution’s case was that Mr Wright was working in a dangerous trench because Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings’ systems had failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect him from working in that way. In convicting the company, the jury found that their system of work in digging trial pits was wholly and unnecessarily dangerous. The company ignored well-recognised industry guidance that prohibited entry into excavations more than 1.2 metres deep, requiring junior employees to enter into and work in unsupported trial pits, typically from 2 to 3.5 metres deep. Mr Wright was working in just such a pit when he died.

There was no person in the dock at Winchester Crown Court during the three-week trial as it is the company, rather than an individual, which is charged with corporate manslaughter.

The case was investigated by Gloucestershire Constabulary and supported by the Health and Safety Executive.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings will be sentenced on Thursday 17 February 2011.

CPS Update - afternoon of Thursday 10 February

We sent the following statement to the Express today, in response to a story about Samantha Sadler from Cheshire.

“The defendant was charged in September 2010 with causing grievous bodily harm with intent. This is a serious offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. If the defendant is an adult, the offence can only be heard at Crown Court. Where the defendant is under 18 years old, the charge should be heard in the Youth Court unless that court is of the view that it is such a grave crime that its sentencing powers are insufficient. The CPS argued the case should be heard at Crown Court but the defence argued it could be heard in the Youth Court, which accepted jurisdiction.

“The defence argued that the charge was not appropriate, on the basis of a lack of intent, and offered a plea to grievous bodily harm without the intent element. “The CPS keeps cases under constant review and after reviewing the evidence, the prosecutor decided that the plea was acceptable. The family of the victim was contacted and the position explained to them. In October 2010, the defendant pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm and in December 2010 was sentenced to a 12 month intensive referral order to deal with his offending behaviour and ordered to pay £200 compensation to the victim.”

And in relation to the consultation on guidance for prosecutors in relation to perverting the course of justice, we have sent the following to a number of press contacts:

"One press report about the interim guidance we have launched today has said that women who make false allegations of rape in retaliation for domestic violence by their partners could escape prosecution under the guidelines. Please note that this is potentially very misleading as the word ‘retaliation’ commonly implies some sort of revenge. The guidance is clear that people who make a false allegation of rape with malice are more likely to be prosecuted, and not less.

"The guidance aims to protect individuals who retract a truthful allegation as a result of pressure or fear of violence, while taking a firm approach to those who make a malicious allegation against an innocent person."

CPS Update - Thursday 10 February

• We have launched a public consultation on guidance for prosecutors dealing with retractions of rape and domestic violence allegations.

Individuals who retract truthful allegations out of fear are less likely to be prosecuted under the proposed new guidance for the offence of perverting the course of justice. But individuals who make malicious false allegations should know they risk prosecution.

See our press release and the consultation for full details.

• Jim Devine, former MP, has been convicted for theft by false accounting at Southwark Crown Court. Simon Clements, Head of the CPS Special Crime Division, said:

“Jim Devine submitted invoices for services that he had neither paid for nor received. In doing so, he took advantage of the trust that had been placed in him by virtue of the public office he held.

“Submitting a false invoice is plainly dishonest, regardless of why it has been done or who has done it. We say there is no excuse for such conduct and, with today’s conviction, it is clear the jury agreed.”

Devine was convicted on counts two and three of the indictment:

Count 2: False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968. Value: £2,880.

James Devine, between 30 September 2008 and 31 May 2009, dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or with intent to cause loss to another, in furnishing information for the purpose of making allowance claims produced or made use of documents required for an accounting purpose, namely two Form ACA2 claim forms, one Form PAAE2 claim form and three invoices in the name of Tom O’Donnell Hygiene & Cleaning Services, which to his knowledge were or may have been misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, in that they purported to show that Tom O’Donnell Hygiene & Cleaning Services had provided and charged for the professional services described in the documents, when in fact the services had not been so provided or charged for.

Count 3: False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968. Value: £5,505.

Jim Devine, between 1 March and 9 April 2009, dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or with intent to cause loss to another, in furnishing information for the purpose of making allowance claims produced or made use of documents required for an accounting purpose, namely two Form Comms1 claim forms and two invoices in the name of Armstrong Printing Limited, which to his knowledge were or may have been misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, in that they purported to show that Armstrong Printing Limited had provided and charged for the professional services described in the documents, when in fact the services had not been so provided or charged for.

Mr Devine was also acquitted of count one, which related to claims worth £360 in total for cleaning services.

• CPS Durham has advised Durham Police there is not enough new evidence under the double jeopardy provisions for the Director of Public Prosecutions to authorise an investigation into former GP Howard Martin, acquitted of the murder of three of his patients six years ago. Durham Chief Crown Prosecutor Chris Enzor said:

“The case was reopened by Durham Police after patients’ families complained about remarks made by Mr Martin in an interview with a national newspaper.

“The law was changed in 2005 to allow those who had been acquitted of serious offences to face a retrial in certain circumstances if there is new and compelling evidence. The law allows the police to make certain preliminary inquiries but the re-opening of an investigation needs the consent of the DPP, as does an application to the Court of Appeal for a retrial. It is for the Chief Crown Prosecutor to act as the channel between the police and the DPP.

“The police provided me with evidence given at the inquest into the deaths of three of Mr Howard’s patients: Mr Moss, Mr Weldon and Mr Gittins, as well as evidence from disciplinary proceedings of the General Medical Council. There were also copies of tapes and interview transcripts, obtained by a court order, following comments Mr Martin made to a reporter from the Daily Telegraph.

“The areas covered by the inquest and the GMC disciplinary proceedings were broadly the same as in Mr Martin’s trial and no materially new issues arose. Mr Martin’s interviews with the Daily Telegraph amounted overall to a continued denial, not an admission, of guilt.

“After careful consideration of this material, including discussion with leading counsel who prosecuted in the 2005 murder trial, I have decided that in these circumstances there is not sufficient new evidence, as the law requires, to warrant the conduct of an investigation which must the authorised by the DPP. I have advised the police of this.

“I appreciate this has been a distressing time for the families of Mr Moss, Mr Weldon and Mr Gittins and I have offered to meet with them to explain in greater detail the reasons for my decision.

“I have also looked to see whether there is any new evidence which might support a prosecution relating to certain other patients. These cases were looked at previously and it was decided at the time there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. In all of these cases, I have concluded that there is no new evidence to allow us to start criminal proceedings."

CPS update Wednesday 9 February

Following advances in DNA analysis, Lancashire Constabulary have closed the 35-year-old murder case of Joan Mary Harrison from Preston. John Dilworth, head of the Lancashire/Cumbria complex casework unit, said:

“In considering cases, the CPS has to decide if there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest for a prosecution to begin. Only after trial does a jury decide whether a person is guilty or not, on a higher standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt.

“The CPS has advised Lancashire Police that this recent development in their investigation has now revealed evidence that would have been sufficient to prosecute Christopher Smith, if he were alive. We cannot prejudge the outcome of a trial. However, had Mr Smith lived, our decision would have authorised the police to begin the legal process by charging him.

“We agreed to look at the evidence on a deceased suspect because of the very exceptional circumstances of this case.”

In response to questions from BBC Radio 4 about the CPS legal guidance on non-accidental head injury cases involving children, the CPS responded:

“Dr Waney Squier has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, on 25 January 2011 to express her concern about judicial criticism being included in an annexe to CPS Guidance on Non-Accidental Head Injury Cases Involving Children. The DPP will be responding to her.

“The guidance has been made publicly available to ensure that the wider public are aware of the issues the CPS will take into account when deciding on the nature and quality of any relevant evidence. A range of senior pathologists, paediatric medical experts, investigators, representatives from academia and professional bodies was involved in updating the guidance.

“Each and every case is decided on the particular circumstances and the evidential material presented to the CPS by the investigation team and in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“Prosecutors have a duty to ensure they consider the strength and relevance of the prosecution evidence in the light of defences likely to be put forward on behalf of the defendant. The prosecution must take into account as much recent, relevant information as possible so the case can be properly put before the judge and jury for them to decide on the facts and the application of the law. Sharing expertise and interpreting and applying relevant case law is an essential element of this function. When dealing with expert evidence, prosecutors and the defence are required to apply the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010.

“We are aware of the conference in America and can confirm the CPS played no part in its organisation or presentation of any materials. As an independent prosecuting authority, the CPS conducts its prosecutions entirely in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors as well as the CPS Core Quality Standards.

“We understand that notes made by a delegate at that conference were brought before the Court of Appeal last year and that Lord Justice Leveson ruled the matters referred to were not relevant to the defence submissions in that particular case.”

Three Pakistan cricketers and agent face corruption and cheating charges

We have authorised charges of conspiracy to obtain and accept corrupt payments and also conspiracy to cheat against Mohammad Amir, Mohammad Asif, Salman Butt and Mazhar Majeed. Simon Clements, Head of the CPS Special Crime Division, said:

“We have decided that Mohammad Amir, Mohammad Asif, Salman Butt and their agent, Mazhar Majeed, should be charged with conspiracy to obtain and accept corrupt payments and also conspiracy to cheat.

“These charges relate to allegations that Mr Majeed accepted money from a third party to arrange for the players to bowl ‘no balls’ on 26 and 27 August 2010, during Pakistan’s Fourth Test at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London.

“Mr Majeed has been summonsed to appear for a first hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 17 March.

“Summonses for the same court date have been issued for the three players and they have been asked to return to this country voluntarily, as they agreed to do in September last year. Their extradition will be sought should they fail to return.

“The Crown Prosecution Service has been working closely with the Metropolitan Police Service since the allegations of match-fixing became public on 29 August 2010.

“We received a full file of evidence on 7 December 2010 and we are satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute.

“I would remind everyone that these men are entitled to a fair trial and should be regarded as innocent of these charges unless it is proven otherwise in court. The International Cricket Council tribunal is due to announce its decision tomorrow, but criminal proceedings are active now.

“It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice the trial.”

• Conspiracy to commit an offence is defined under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Conspiracies are indictable-only and must be sent to the Crown Court. Section 3 of the Act specifies that the maximum sentence for an offence also applies to a conspiracy to commit that offence.

• Obtaining and accepting corrupt payments is an offence contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. It carries a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine at the Crown Court. The Attorney General has consented to this charge.

• Cheating is an offence contrary to section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. It carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine at the Crown Court.