CPS News Brief

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.”

Statement following acquittal of William Roache

Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS North West, said:

“When serious allegations are made and the evidence in a case passes the prosecution test it is right that a jury considers the evidence. That is the way our legal system works, the prosecution decides that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction whereas the jury must decide the case is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. When a jury delivers a verdict, no matter what it is, that is justice being done.

“We have a duty to those who make complaints of serious offences to listen to the allegations, and assess the evidence against the same evidential standards we use for all criminal cases, no matter who makes the complaint, or who the complaint is against.

“This case was treated like any other - what mattered were the allegations and the evidence and nothing else, and we fully respect the decisions of the jury and thank them for their careful deliberation.”