CPS News Brief

Statement regarding comments made by counsel in R v Neil Wilson

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, held a Post Case Review into the case of R v Neil Wilson last week to address the comments made by prosecuting counsel at Snaresbrook Crown Court on 5 August. Counsel used the term ‘predatory’ during the sentencing hearing to describe the behaviour of a 13-year-old victim of a sexual offence.

The DPP found there was nothing in the instructions given to counsel, including information from the police, the prosecution papers or the pre-sentence report, that could have expressly or implicitly supported describing the victim’s behaviour in such terms. Indeed, the facts of the case made clear that the adult defendant invited the victim to his home, where the offence took place.

Following the Review, the DPP was clear that he found the language used to describe the 13-year-old victim grossly inappropriate. Counsel in the case agreed that he should not have used the expression that he did and deeply regretted his choice of words. It was agreed that he would resign from the CPS Rape Panel of advocates and will no longer undertake prosecutions involving serious sexual offences or child sexual abuse. He will remain on our general advocate panel and will still be instructed in other criminal cases. The DPP is satisfied that no further action needs be taken in relation to this case.

Ben Ashford charged with possession of criminal property and unauthorised access to computer material

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

“The CPS has today authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Ben Ashford with one offence of possession of criminal property and one offence of unauthorised access to computer material.

“He will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 15 October 2013.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against Ben Ashford will now be commenced and that he has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice that trial. For these reasons it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.”

The full charges are as follows:

Between 11/10/09 and 16/10/09 Ben Ashford possessed criminal property, namely a mobile telephone belonging to Emma Murray, knowing or suspecting it to constitute a person’s benefit from criminal conduct.

Contrary to section 329(1) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Between 11/10/09 and 16/10/09 Ben Ashford caused a computer to perform a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to a program or data held in a computer, knowing that such access was unauthorised.

Contrary to section 1(1) Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Nine charged over A4E fraud

Sue Patten, Head of Fraud at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Following an investigation by the Thames Valley Police Economic Crime Unit, the CPS has authorised charges against six women and three men in connection with alleged fraudulent activity at Action 4 Employment (A4E), a social purpose company contracted by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to deliver the ‘Inspire to Aspire’ employment and training scheme.

“It is alleged that between February 2009 and February 2013 nine A4E employees including one contract manager, seven recruiters and an administrator, employed across three A4E offices in the South East of England, committed numerous offences of fraud. It is alleged that they forged documentation to support fraudulent claims to the DWP for reward payments which, under the terms of the contract, were paid out when the scheme successfully placed individuals in employment. It is alleged that many of the reward payments related either to people who never attended A4E or to clients whom A4E had not successfully placed in employment. The contract was to deliver motivation and training and to assist people to find employment.

“The nine individuals are charged with a total of 60 offences, including conspiracy to defraud, multiple counts of forgery, and making and possessing articles for use in fraud.

"This decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have determined that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

"All individuals will appear before Slough Magistrates' Court on 14 October 2013.

"All individuals are now the subject of criminal proceedings and have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could in any way prejudice these proceedings."

Full Charges:

Ines Cano-Uribe (Contract Manager) - Charged with one count of forgery contrary to section 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and one count of conspiracy to defraud contrary to Common Law.

Zabar Khalil (Administrator) - Charged with five counts of forgery contrary to section 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and one count of conspiracy to defraud contrary to Common Law.

Charles McDonald (Recruiter) - Charged with seven counts of forgery contrary to section 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, two counts of making articles for use in fraud contrary to section 7(1)(a) of the Fraud Act 2006 and one count of possessing articles for use in fraud contrary to section 6(1) of the Fraud Act 2006.

Nikki Foster (Recruiter) – Charged with ten counts of forgery contrary to section 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Julie Grimes (Recruiter) - Charged with ten counts of forgery contrary to section 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Aditi Singh (Recruiter) - Charged with three counts of forgery contrary to section 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and one count of possessing articles for use in fraud contrary to section 6(1) of the Fraud Act 2006.

Bindiya Dholiwar (Recruiter) - Charged with seven counts of forgery contrary to section 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Dean Lloyd (Recruiter) - Charged with thirteen counts of forgery contrary to section 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Yasmin Ahmad (Recruiter) - Charged with two counts of forgery contrary to section 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Operation Imperial - three men charged

Statement from Catrin Evans, Head of Complex Casework Unit, CPS Cymru-Wales:

“The Crown Prosecution Service has been working alongside Gwent Police as their investigations under Operation Imperial, an anti-slavery operation set up to investigate allegations of mistreatment, have progressed. In particular, we have been offering advice and guidance to the police since four suspects were arrested on Monday.

“I have now carried out a review of the evidence gathered by Gwent Police in relation to three of these suspects. My review has been carried out under the threshold test of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. My conclusion is that there is sufficient evidence to charge Thomas Doran, Daniel Doran and David Daniel Doran with false imprisonment, conspiracy to hold a person in servitude and conspiracy to require a person to perform forced or compulsory labour. In addition, there is sufficient evidence to charge Thomas Doran with kidnapping by fraud. In respect of each of these offences, I have also concluded that charges are in the public interest.

“Accordingly, I have authorised Gwent Police to charge the three defendants and they will appear before magistrates on Thursday.

“May I remind all concerned that these three defendants retain the right to a fair trial and police investigations into these matters are ongoing. Whilst public interest in Operation Imperial has, understandably, been considerable, I would ask that nothing is placed in the public domain which could ultimately undermine the criminal justice process.”

Notes to editors:

Thomas Doran, Daniel Doran and David Daniel Doran are charged with:

FALSE IMPRISONMENT, contrary to common law

CONSPIRACY TO HOLD A PERSON IN SERVITUDE, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977

CONSPIRACY TO REQUIRE A PERSON TO PERFORM FORCED OR COMPULSORY LABOUR, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977

Additionally, Thomas Doran is charged with:

KIDNAPPING, contrary to common law

The three defendants will appear before Cwmbran Magistrates’ Court on Thursday 26 September.

Caroline Lucas MP Charged over Balcombe Fracking Protests

Nigel Pilkington, a senior lawyer with the Crown Prosecution Service South East, said:

"Following an investigation by Sussex police, the Crown Prosecution Service has received a file of evidence in relation to Ms Caroline Lucas MP, who was arrested during the anti-fracking demonstrations at the Cuadrilla drilling site in Balcombe last month.

"After careful consideration, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and that it is in the public interest to prosecute Ms Lucas for breaching a police order on public assemblies and wilful obstruction of the highway.

“Sussex Police has therefore been authorised to charge one count of breach of a section 14 order contrary to section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 and one count of Wilful Obstruction of the Highway contrary to section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. Both offences are alleged to have taken place on 19 August 2013.

“The decision has been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s guidance on cases involving public protest.

“These are summary offences which can only be tried at Magistrates' Court.

"Ms Lucas will appear before Crawley Magistrates' Court on 9 October 2013.”

Beverley Concannon charged with animal welfare offences

Following consultation with Greater Manchester Police and the RSPCA, the Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised Greater Manchester Police to charge Beverley Concannon from Atherton, Greater Manchester with three offences under the Animal Welfare Act.

This follows investigations by the police and by the RSPCA after the tragic death of Jade Anderson, who was attacked by four dogs in Beverley Concannon’s home on 24 March 2013. The CPS has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to bring any criminal charges in connection with Jade’s death.

Elizabeth Reed, Branch Crown Prosecutor, CPS North West said:

“The Crown Prosecution Service has carried out a very detailed review of all the evidence from Greater Manchester Police following investigations into Jade Anderson’s tragic death, and I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to charge anyone in connection with her death.

“I considered whether it was possible to bring any charges under the Dangerous Dogs Act and whether there was sufficient evidence to charge Beverley Concannon, the owner of the dogs, with manslaughter by gross negligence. I have concluded that as the four dogs are not prohibited breeds under the Dangerous Dogs Act and were not out of control in a public place it is not possible to bring charges under the Dangerous Dogs legislation. I have also concluded, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of this case and the law relating to manslaughter by gross negligence, that there is insufficient evidence to bring a charge for this offence against her.

“The RSPCA also carried out investigations into the conditions and welfare of the four dogs at the address. I have considered the evidence they have provided, including an expert’s report, and following consultation with the RSPCA and police I have today authorised the police to charge Beverley Concannon with three offences under the Animal Welfare Act. The charges relate to the conditions in which she kept the four dogs at her home address and her failure to exercise reasonable care and supervision of them.

“This is a very sad case in which a young girl tragically lost her life. We have given it the meticulous attention it deserves and have considered all possible prosecution outcomes. My thoughts and sincere condolences remain with Jade’s family for their loss. They have been kept informed throughout the case and we have given them a detailed explanation of our decisions.”

Beverley Concannon has been charged with two offences contrary to Section 4 (1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and one offence contrary to Section 9 (1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and will appear at Wigan Magistrates Court on 1 October 2013.

The four dogs were humanely destroyed by police on 24 March 2013.

Note

Offences under Section 4 (1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and Section 9 (1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are summary only offences.

Kevin Howe convicted of assisted attempted suicide

Kevin Howe has today been found guilty of assisted attempted suicide after intentionally supplying a man with the means to set himself on fire in Bishop Auckland in May.

Elizabeth Reid, specialist prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service Special Crime Division, said:

“The victim in this case was known to be suicidal. He had told people earlier that day that he intended to set himself alight and had made threats to commit suicide on many previous occasions.

“Kevin Howe was fully aware of these intentions when he bought the victim both petrol and a lighter, and he knew precisely how they would be used. He deliberately encouraged the victim, who was clearly vulnerable, to set himself alight in a horrific and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide.

“Kevin Howe failed to provide any satisfactory explanation of his actions throughout this case and has today been brought to justice.

“I extend my sympathies to the victim in this case, who remains in hospital, and hope today’s conviction provides some comfort to both to him and his family, as well as their friends and neighbours, many of whom witnessed this distressing and upsetting incident.”

Kevin Howe will be sentenced at Durham Crown Court on 4 October 2013.

Operation Elveden: former Sun journalist to be charged

Gregor McGill, a senior lawyer with the Crown Prosecution Service, whose team handles CPS decision making and potential prosecutions in relation to the ongoing phone hacking investigations and other related matters, said:

“This announcement relates to one file of evidence from the Metropolitan Police in relation to Operation Elveden, which is the Metropolitan Police's investigation into allegations involving the unlawful provision of information by public officials to journalists.

“Following careful review of the evidence we have concluded that Ben O’Driscoll, former Deputy News Editor at The Sun newspaper, should be charged with one count of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

“It is alleged that Ben O’Driscoll authorised payments of at least £5,000 to public officials, including police officers and employees of Broadmoor secure hospital, in exchange for information.

“This information related to details about police incidents and crimes, including information about high-profile individuals and those associated with them. It also included information relating to the health and activities of Broadmoor patients.

“Due to ongoing proceedings in Operation Elveden it would be inappropriate to say any more at this stage.

“All of these matters were considered carefully in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP's guidelines on the public interest in cases affecting the media. This guidance asks prosecutors to consider whether the public interest served by the conduct in question outweighs the overall criminality before bringing criminal proceedings.

“Accordingly, we have authorised the institution of proceedings against Ben O’Driscoll and he will be summonsed to appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 18 September 2013.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against Ben O’Driscoll will now be commenced and that he has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice that trial. For these reasons it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.”

The full charge is as follows:

Ben O’Driscoll, between 9 August 2007 and 11 January 2011, conspired together with journalists at the Sun newspaper and public officials employed by the police and Broadmoor secure hospital and others unknown to commit misconduct in a public office Contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

Statement from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, on the case of Mr Nigel Evans MP

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, said:

“Following an investigation by Lancashire police, the Crown Prosecution Service has received a file of evidence in the case of Mr Nigel Evans MP which concerns allegations of a sexual nature.

“After careful consideration, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and that it is in the public interest to prosecute Mr Evans. Lancashire Constabulary has therefore been authorised to charge two counts of indecent assault, five counts of sexual assault and one count of rape relating to a total of seven alleged victims.

“The decision in this case was taken by Joanne Cunliffe, an experienced specialist rape prosecutor, in consultation with John Dilworth, Head of the CPS North West Complex Casework Unit and in consultation with an external and highly experienced criminal QC. I have also been consulted on this case. The decision has been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the CPS legal guidance on rape and sexual offences.

“Mr Evans will appear before Preston Magistrates’ Court on 18 September 2013.

“Can I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings are now active. All defendants have the right to a fair trial and it is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice this trial.”

The charges are:

• One count of indecent assault on a man, dating between 1 January 2002 and 1 January 2004, contrary to Section 15 Sexual Offences Act 1956

• One count of indecent assault on a man, dating between 1 January 2003 and 1 January 2004, contrary to Section 15 Sexual Offences Act 1956

• One count of sexual assault on a man, between 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2010, contrary to Section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003

• One count of sexual assault on a man, between 30 June 2009 and 1 August 2009, contrary to Section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003

• One count of sexual assault on a man, between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2011, contrary to Section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003

• One count of sexual assault on a man, between 1 January 2011 and 1 January 2012, contrary to Section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003

• Once count of rape of a man, between 29 March 2013 and 1 April 2013, contrary to Section 1 Sexual Offences Act 2003

• One count of sexual assault on a man, between 29 March 2013 and 1 April 2013, contrary to Section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003

Man charged with murder of Rosemary Shearman

Simon Ringrose, Senior Lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Thomas Blazquez, 50, with the murder of Rosemary Shearman, 72, who was attacked in her home in Hornchurch, Essex on 3 September.

“Mr Blazquez has been charged with one count of murder.

"This decision was taken under the Threshold Test in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“He will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2013.

"Mr Blazquez now stands charged with a criminal offence and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial.”

Five sentenced to total of 21 years for country’s largest ever mortgage fraud

Five people from North Wales have been sentenced to a total of 21 years in prison at Mold Crown Court today (6 September) for their parts in what the court heard was the biggest mortgage fraud ever investigated in England and Wales.

Among the conspirators were former police officer Antony Lowry-Huws, his wife Susan Margaret Lowry Huws, and his business partner Sheila Rose Whalley. Solicitor Nicholas John Jones and surveyor Frank Edward Darlington were also co-conspirators.

The longest custodial sentence of seven years was handed down to Antony Lowry-Huws, who the court heard was the ringleader of a fraud believed to have been worth more than £50m and to have involved more than 1,000 bogus mortgage applications.

Elspeth Pringle, specialist fraud prosecutor at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“The scale, duration and sophistication of this fraudulent scheme are a demonstration of criminal behaviour at its most devious.

“The actions of the five members of this mortgage fraud ring were motivated by nothing more than greed, and their willingness to betray the trust of mortgage lenders for personal profit seemed to have no limits.

“Each of the co-conspirators sentenced today had their own specific role to play in this intricate crime, and all were fully aware of the deceitfulness of their actions.

“The successful prosecution of these individuals should act as a deterrent to anyone engaged in similar activity, particularly those occupying positions of trust within their profession.

“This was an exceptionally complex case, and we would like to thank everyone from the investigation and prosecution teams that worked so hard to help to bring these criminals to justice.”

Additional information: The scheme involved a range of mechanisms, including false property valuations and submission of fraudulent paperwork relating to rental incomes and deposits. The court heard that in many of the cases, the property against which the mortgages were secured simply did not exist.

Each was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud in relation to 189 fraudulent mortgage applications made between May 2003 and June 2008, which was a representative sample from the over 1,000 applications made.

CPS statement on abortion related case

Statement from the DPP on abortion case.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC said:

“This was a very difficult and finely balanced decision. It was based on the individual facts of the case; it is not a policy decision. But in light of concerns raised today, I have decided that it would be sensible to put into the public domain the case specific reasons for not prosecuting in much greater detail. Clearly this will involve careful consideration of how much information can be put into the public domain by way of explanation, but my intention is for a fuller statement to made by the CPS in due course. In the mean time, I understand that the Health Secretary has written to the Attorney General asking for clarification and I am happy to assist him in any way.”

Current statement explaining the decision making. This will be expanded upon in due course.

The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute two doctors in relation to alleged attempts to commit abortions on the grounds of foetal gender. These decisions result from an investigation (Operation Monto) carried out by several police forces and coordinated by the Metropolitan Police Service, following an undercover operation by a newspaper. We have previously advised police that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute four medical professionals in relation to this matter.

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

“We have been asked to review two separate allegations against two medical professionals in Birmingham and Manchester concerning requests for an abortion made by a pregnant woman acting on behalf of an investigative journalist. Both suspects were doctors and providers of pregnancy terminations at the time of the alleged offences. The undercover operation involved the pregnant woman presenting herself as seeking an abortion on the grounds that she did not want to give birth to a girl. We are satisfied there was no intention to proceed.

“The Abortion Act 1967 allows for an abortion in a limited range of circumstances but not purely on the basis of not wanting a child of a specific gender.

“While the abortions did not take place, attempting to commit a criminal offence – that is, doing something that goes further than just preparing to commit it – is also a crime in its own right under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

“Having carefully considered the evidence, we have concluded that although the case is not straightforward, on balance there is enough evidence to justify bringing proceedings for an attempt. Accordingly, we have considered whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. It has never been the case in this country that where there is sufficient evidence a prosecution must take place, and in this case there are public interest factors both in favour of and against prosecution.

“The facilitation, or attempted facilitation of illegal abortions is a serious matter, and each case must be considered in the context of the specific circumstances of the case.

“On considering the public interest factors, as set out in the Code for Crown prosecutors, one highly relevant factor in this regard is that the responsible professional body, in this case the General Medical Council, is already involved and has the power to remove doctors from the medical register. Taking into account the need for professional judgement which deals firmly with wrongdoing, while not deterring other doctors from carrying out legitimate and medically justified abortions, we have concluded that these specific cases would be better dealt with by the GMC rather than by prosecution.

“In addition, when looking at the culpability of the doctors in this case, we must take into account the fact that doctors are required to interpret the law and apply it to range of sensitive and difficult circumstances which are not set out in the legislation. The evidence in this case was finely balanced and the law gives quite a wide discretion to doctors to determine when a risk to the health and wellbeing of a pregnant woman exists.

“In coming to this conclusion, we have also taken into account the level of harm to the victim in the case, and the fact that in these cases no abortion took place or would have taken place.

“This is a case specific decision on the individual facts; it is not a policy decision of general application.”

Shahidul Ahmed convicted of the murder of Rachel Manning

Baljit Ubhey OBE, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Thames and Chiltern Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said:

“This case involved the tragic murder of a young woman more than 12 years ago. Rachel Manning, who was trying to find her way home after a night out, had the misfortune to come across Ahmed.

“We may never know for sure what happened that night, or why Ahmed murdered Rachel, but what we do know is that Ahmed is an extremely dangerous man who was convicted last year of a sexual assault against another young woman.

“Had it not been for his arrest for that offence Ahmed may never have been brought to justice for Rachel’s murder. It is thanks to developments in DNA evidence techniques that we are able to secure this conviction today.

“This case represents a tragedy for the family of Rachel Manning. And there are others whose lives have also been affected. Two innocent men were imprisoned as a result of this terrible crime and we hope that this conviction represents closure for them too.

“We know that nothing will bring Rachel Manning back to her family, but we hope that this conviction brings them at least a small sense that justice has been done. Our thoughts are very much with them.”

CPS charging announcement in relation to Daniel Evans

Gregor McGill, a senior lawyer with the Crown Prosecution Service, whose team handles CPS decision making and potential prosecutions in relation to the ongoing phone hacking investigations and other related matters, said:

“The CPS has concluded there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge Daniel Evans with four offences in connection with the phone hacking investigations. The charges, which relate to both Operations Weeting and Elveden, are as follows:

Charge 1

Between 28 February 2003 and 1 January 2005, conspired with others to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of well-known people and those associated with them.

Contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977

Charge 2

Between 30 April 2004 and 1 June 2010, conspired with others to intercept communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely the voicemail messages of well-known people and those associated with them.

Contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977

Charge 3

Between 1 January 2008 and 1 June 2010, conspired with others to commit misconduct in public office.

Contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977

Charge 4

Between 21 June 2009 and 30 April 2010, committed an act which had a tendency to pervert the course of justice, namely making a false witness statement in connection with proceedings before the High Court of England and Wales.

Contrary to common law

“All of these matters were considered carefully in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP's guidelines on the public interest in cases affecting the media. These guidelines ask prosecutors to consider whether the public interest served by the conduct in question outweighs the overall criminality before bringing criminal proceedings.

“Accordingly, we have authorised the institution of proceedings against Daniel Evans and he will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 September 2013.

“May I remind all concerned that proceedings for criminal offences involving this individual will now be commenced and he has a right to a fair trial.

“It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice this. For these reasons it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.”