CPS News Brief

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.”