CPS News Brief

EASY PREY FOR EVIL MEN

By Nazir Afzal OBE, Chief Crown Prosecutor CPS North West

As the Chief Prosecutor who led the teams that brought, amongst others, the so called Rochdale Grooming Gang to justice in 2012 for the abuse of up to 47 young girls, for the past two years I have led a national network of prosecutors who have dedicated themselves to gaining the experience and expertise to tackle all such localised grooming and child sexual abuse in England and Wales. We learnt very early on that to make a difference you have to act differently.

There is sadly no community where women and girls are not at risk from men and sexual predators. The CPS has prosecuted people from more than 25 countries, not including the EU, for sexual offences and trafficking in the last three years. In that same period, victims of trafficking and sexual offending came from 64 countries, not including the EU. We have learnt that abusers of women and girls are of all nationalities, ages and ethnicities though the vast majority of it is carried out by white British males.

Rochdale, Oxford, Rotherham, Telford, and other such towns and cities have been rightly in the public’s consciousness as a result of similar cases where their children have been preyed upon. Vulnerability is universal and not confined to particular races. The problem that we identified in the Rochdale case was that prejudice in the form of the questioning of the credibility of the young girls prevented justice being delivered prior to our prosecution. In fact, I had to reverse a decision not to prosecute to even initiate the prosecution of this particular group of offenders. If we don’t believe her, who will? If she has had a troubled life, then a refusal to act will subject her to a lifetime of abuse. The authorities and communities appeared to have turned a blind eye to the abuse of its own children. The fact that there were no prosecutions of note was not a failure on the part of the victims, but a failure on the part of the state. These men targeted them because we all didn’t care. We have spent decades telling children that they should be “seen and not heard,” why then are we surprised when we didn’t hear their cries for help?

Responsibility for the abuse begins and ends with the criminals who commit these acts, not collectively with the law abiding communities of this country. There is, however, a collective and individual duty to report what you suspect and to act to protect these vulnerable youngsters. This type of offending relies upon the silence of the majority in order for them to harm our children. The gangs do not just select white girls, the ringleader of the Rochdale gang was subsequently convicted of raping a girl from his own ethnicity, and it beggars belief that others within that community did not know what these grown men were doing with young girls in these circumstances.

The ethnicity of many of the abusers in Rotherham and Rochdale and other places is a matter of fact, namely that they were from Pakistani or South Asian backgrounds. I do not care where they come from as long as they are stopped and brought to justice. I told Parliament in 2012 that the ethnicity of the perpetrators was an issue but not THE issue. Yes, members of the Pakistani community and Asian community may themselves have been threatened by the gangs in order not to disclose what they knew, but those that could have, should have. That does not, however, take away responsibility from these men for the actions that they have carried out.

It was not the abuser’s race that defined them, but their attitude to women and girls. They targeted young women and girls because of their availability and vulnerability as a result of short comings on the part of those who should have safeguarded them. Victims fell prey to men, often in the night time economy. This is where young girls would migrate in order to seek warmth, transport, food, and alcohol/drugs and this is where men from minorities were disproportionately employed. The girls were manipulated, distanced from their friends and families and harmed. There is no excuse for what they did and nor is there any excuse for the authorities to choose not to believe and protect.

The Asian communities have woken up to the criminals in their midst. They recognise that they can do more to stop this offending. When I was initially criticised by some for giving racists a stick to beat minority communities, I said that our communities should be carrying their own sticks. The reaction by the Far Right in targeting me was even more unexpected. I brought these men to justice when others had not, but that damaged the racists’ narrative that all minorities are the same. So I was subjected to a campaign to intimidate me, but letters and emails calling for me to be “sacked and deported” were met with the response that I was born in Birmingham!

Look at the journey that the Crown Prosecution Service has taken over the last five years. We have our first guidance for prosecutors to tackle these types of crime. We have specialist prosecutors in every Area in a network that I chair. We have a panel that looks at non-recent allegations together with the police and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. We are building stronger cases through earlier intervention and increasing the number of successful prosecutions. We are now clear that we will focus on the credibility of the allegation rather than that of the complainant. We know that the very vulnerabilities that these young girls carry – often the use of drink or drugs; the involvement in low level crime; distance from family and friends and the attachment to their abusers – are both the reasons they were targeted and the reasons they were not listened to in the past. These are the signs we now look for to strengthen our cases, not weaken them. There are hundreds of suspects upon whom we are currently advising and we are together protecting hundreds of victims. In one operation alone there are 20 potential victims and 180 potential suspects. It is time for the criminals to be in fear.

However, another girl will have been abused whilst this article was read. Others will have been targeted for future abuse. Organisations, through a lack of knowledge and awareness, will contribute to enabling these crimes to go unnoticed. We cannot shy away from tackling child sexual abuse regardless of where it occurs and by whom. Multi-cultural sensitivity is no excuse for our blindness.

This article first appeared in the Mail on Sunday on 31 August 2014

One individual conditionally cautioned for misconduct in public office

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

“In November 2013 the CPS received a file concerning an allegation against one individual, a former soldier, of misconduct in public office.

“The individual has been conditionally cautioned in relation to the disclosure of information in return for payment from a newspaper, the condition being that he must make a payment of £150 to a charity connected with the armed services. In accepting a conditional caution an individual accepts responsibility for the offending set out.

“The evidence was considered carefully in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s guidelines on the public interest in cases affecting the media.”

One individual conditionally cautioned for misconduct in public office

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

“In November 2013 the CPS received a file concerning an allegation against one individual, a former soldier, of misconduct in public office.

“The individual has been conditionally cautioned in relation to the disclosure of information in return for payment from a newspaper, the condition being that he must make a payment of £150 to a charity connected with the armed services. In accepting a conditional caution an individual accepts responsibility for the offending set out.

“The evidence was considered carefully in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s guidelines on the public interest in cases affecting the media.”

Charging decision concerning MPS Special Demonstration Squad

The CPS received a file in relation to a number of police officers under Operation Aubusson, a subset of Operation Herne, which is an investigation into the activities of the Metropolitan Police Service’s Special Demonstration Squad. The evidence in this case relates to alleged sexual misconduct. In reviewing the case we have considered whether there is sufficient evidence to allow charges of rape, indecent assault, procuring a woman to have sexual intercourse by false pretences, misconduct in public office and breaches of the Official Secrets Act.

Having carefully considered all the available evidence, provided at the end of a thorough investigation, we have determined that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for any offences against any of the officers. Investigators from Operation Aubusson have confirmed that no further lines of enquiry are available at this time.

The suggestion has been made publicly that officers, while allegedly acting undercover, may have committed sexual offences in relation to personal relationships they formed during their deployment. There was only one complaint of criminal activity against one of the officers, but a number of other officers were considered as a result of allegations made publicly which investigators had become aware of.

It is not possible to go into the facts of this case in detail, but we consider that an explanation of our decision making should be given as far as is possible:

• In order to prove the offence of rape the prosecution must show that the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse. In this case the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the case law interpreting that Act is applicable, the effect of which is that consent can be negated if there has been a deception as to the nature of the act (for example where consent was induced by the pretence that the act of intercourse was for medical treatment) or where there has been deception as to the identity of the suspect. The identity of the suspect is relevant to a very limited extent. Section 1(3) of the Act expressly provides that impersonating a woman’s husband may vitiate (negate) consent. This section was later extended by case law to include the impersonation of a person’s partner. The law does not go further and allow the fact that a person does not reveal their true or full identity to be capable of vitiating consent where it is otherwise freely given.
  
  
• The 1956 Act does not define “consent”, and so the word needs to be given its ordinary meaning in cases falling under that Act. The 1956 Act was replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which does provide a definition of consent in section 74. Although the 2003 Act is not applicable in this case as it post-dates the allegations, the principles set out in section 74 of that Act, which relate to freedom and capacity to make a choice, provide helpful guidance as to the ordinary meaning of “consent” and to that extent were relevant to this case.

Case law which demonstrates the law on consent as set out in the 2003 Act includes:

• R – v – Assange, where the court concluded that if consent was conditional on the use of the condom during intercourse, and the condition was deliberately disregarded, that was capable of amounting to rape.
• R(F) – v – the DPP, where the claimant said that she had consented to sexual intercourse only on the clear understanding that her partner would withdraw before ejaculation, and there was evidence that the condition was deliberately ignored. The court held that those facts were capable of amounting to rape on the basis that she had been deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. The court commented that “the evidence relating to choice and the freedom to make any particular choice must be approached in a broad common sense way”.
• R – v – McNally, where consent was negated on the basis that the victim believed she was having sex with a male partner, where in fact she was having sex with a female who had deceived her. In this case the Court of Appeal said that “depending on the circumstances, deception as to gender can vitiate consent”… but added: “in reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent.”

We have concluded, after careful consideration of the evidence in accordance with the principles set out above, that any deceptions in the circumstances of this case were not such as to vitiate consent and that consequently there is insufficient evidence to prosecute for rape.

• In order to prosecute the offence of indecent assault, the same test would need to be satisfied in terms of consent, and the CPS has determined there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction on this basis.
  
  
• In order to prosecute for procurement of a woman for sexual intercourse by false pretences, the prosecution would need to show that any deception was carried out as a specific inducement to sexual intercourse, which took place as a direct result of such inducement. There was insufficient evidence to prove this.
  
  
• In order to prosecute misconduct in public office, the prosecution would have to show that an officer knowingly abused their position in order to bring a sexual relationship about, as opposed to having engaged in a sexual relationship whilst holding the position in question. There was insufficient evidence to show this.
  
  
• In order to prosecute a breach of the Official Secrets Act the prosecution would have to prove that the suspect in question disclosed information that would, or would be likely to, damage the work of the security and intelligence services; or that the disclosure would impede the prevention of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders. We determined that neither could be proved.

Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute. Our role is not an exercise in moral judgment nor is it intended to condone or condemn any behaviour by any individual, rather it is an impartial application of the criminal law to the circumstances of this case.

Notes to editors:

The CPS’s function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, a copy of which is provided here. 

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

Crown Prosecution Service secures first ever recovery of criminal assets from United Arab Emirates

Following extensive work both in the UK and Dubai, the new CPS Proceeds of Crime Service in London, working closely with the recently deployed CPS Asset Recovery Advisor in Dubai, has secured what is believed to be the first ever successful enforcement of a UK confiscation order in the UAE. The UK has recovered over £300,000 from the sale of an apartment in Dubai Marina, belonging to a convicted British criminal.  

Redwan El-Ghaidouni (DOB 24 December 1976) was convicted at Kingston Crown Court in March 2011 for offences of Drug Importation and Possession; a Confiscation Order was put in place in September 2012 for £417,031.52 and this Order has now been fully satisfied following the sale of the apartment. Thanks to an asset sharing agreement with the UAE government, the full amount secured from the sale of the apartment has now been transferred back to the British public purse.

Gary Balch, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor CPS Proceeds of Crime, said:

“It is unacceptable that drug barons should be allowed to profit from their criminal activity and our successful action in this case demonstrates our determination to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains.

“Organised criminals often move their assets across borders in order to prevent them from being confiscated – but the Crown Prosecution Service can and will follow the money wherever it leads in order to reclaim the proceeds of crime. Criminals often consider that hiding money overseas is a safe bet and that their assets will be untouchable - they are mistaken and should take note of today’s result. 

"This would not have been possible without the work of our Asset Recovery Adviser based in the UAE, the first of our ARAs that were put in post by the Director of Public Prosecutions earlier this year. By the end of the year we hope to have as many as five ARAs in place in different jurisdictions around the world allowing us to track and recover criminal assets wherever they may be hidden.” 

Background

• The CPS currently has two Asset Recovery Advisors working in UAE and Spain. Plans are currently in place for three more: one focused on Europe, based in London; one focused on the Caribbean, based in Jamaica and; one in Pretoria, South Africa.

• This is believed to be the first time that the British government or any of its western partners have been able to use Mutual Legal Assistance to enforce a confiscation order in UAE which was overseen by the CPSPOC lawyer based in London;

• The CPSPOC lawyer based in London will also be making an application under s22 of the POCA 2002 to the Court to uplift the Order from £417,031.52 to thebenefit figure (the amount by which Mr El-Ghaidouni benefitted from his crimes) of £424,891.12 as the property has realised far more than what it was valued at the time of the making of the Order.

• On 30 June 2014, as part of work to tackle organised crime, the Director of Public Prosecutions launched a new service within the CPS which will work exclusively on recovering assets from criminals convicted in England and Wales. CPS Proceeds of Crime (CPSPOC) is responsible for all CPS restraint activity and all CPS enforcement activity together with a share of the CPS confiscation caseload. CPSPOC is led by the newly appointed Chief Crown Prosecutor, Nick Price. It will comprise of three central units based in London which will work on the most complex and high value cases. CPSPOC will also have nine regional teams located in the North East, North West, Wales, East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, South East, South West and London. These CPS sites have been chosen to align with Police-led Regional Asset Recovery Teams (RARTs) and, in time, it is intended that the CPSPOC teams be co-located with the RARTs. CPSPOC will also work closely with CPS International Division and international partners around the world.

Charles Napier to face 21 charges of child sexual abuse

Baljit Ubhey, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London, said:

"We have carefully considered the evidence gathered by the Metropolitan Police Service in relation to allegations concerning Charles Napier, a teacher at the time of the alleged offending between 1968 and 1973.

“Having completed our review, we have concluded there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Napier to be charged with 21 offences of indecent assault. These date from 1968 to 1973, and relate to 21 male complainants aged between eight and 13 at the time of the alleged offending and who were pupils at the school where he taught."

The charges are:

1.       One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 - 13 between 1968 and 1970

2.       One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 between 1969 and 1970

3.       One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 12 between 1969 and 1970

4.       One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 13 between 1969 and 1972

5.       One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 12 between 1969 and 1970

6.       One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 9 – 11 between 1970 to 1972

7.       One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 or 9 in 1970

8.       One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 9 – 11 between 1969 and 1972

9.       One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 9 or 10 between 1969 and 1970

10.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 10 to 13 between 1969 and 1972

11.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 13 in 1970

12.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 9 – 12 between 1969 and 1972

13.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 in 1971

14.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 13 between 1969 and 1972

15.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 or 9 – 12 between 1969 and 1972

16.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 – 9 between 1969 and 1970

17.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 13 between 1969 and 1971

18.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 10 – 13 between 1969 and 1972

19.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 12 in 1971

20.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 – 12 between 1969 and 1973

21.   One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 between 1969 and 1970

Ms Ubhey said:

"The decision to prosecute has been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and Crown Prosecution Service legal guidance on rape and child sexual abuse. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

"Mr Napier will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 2 September 2014. 

"May I remind all concerned that Mr Napier 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.”

Three men convicted for the murder of Sabrina Moss

Martell Warren, Hassan Hussain and Yassin James were convicted today at the Central Criminal Court for the murder of Sabrina Moss on 24 August 2013 in Kilburn. They were also convicted for the attempted murders of Sabrina Gachette, Mahad Ahmed and Edson Da Silva. Simon Baptiste was convicted of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm.

Baljit Ubhey, CPS London Chief Crown Prosecutor, said:

“On 24 August 2013 a young woman lost her life as a result of needless gang violence.

“Sabrina Moss was celebrating her 24th birthday, enjoying the end of an evening out with friends when her life was snatched away.

“These defendants were targeting members of a rival gang and spent the hours leading up to the fatal shooting in surveillance of their targets. But when it came to firing shots, they didn’t care who they hit.

“Before the murder the defendants picked up a shotgun and a machine gun. When they began firing it was at close range and with a complete disregard for human life. They then made their escape in a car driven by Warren.

“Although Warren did not fire any of the fatal shots he knowingly took part in this murder of an innocent bystander. Baptiste left the group before the fatal attack, however, his help with the reconnaissance showed he was guilty of conspiring to commit grievous bodily harm.”

Convictions details:

Martell Warren (23), Hassan Hussain (29) and Yassin James (20)

One count of murder

Three counts of attempted murder

Two counts of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life

Simon Baptiste (29)

Conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm

One individual charged and one summonsed for conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office

One individual charged and one summonsed for conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office

A CPS spokesperson said,

“In February 2014 the CPS received a file from the Metropolitan Police, supplemented by further evidence on 12 June 2014. We have today authorised the police to summons Ryan Sabey, a former News of the World journalist, and charge Paul Brunt, a serving soldier at the time of the offence, with an offence of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

“Both will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 21 August 2014.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against Ryan Sabey and Paul Brunt will now be commenced and of their 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.

“These decisions were taken in accordance with the Code of Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s guidelines on the public interest in cases affecting the media. We have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.”

Details of the full charge:

Paul Brunt and Ryan Sabey, between 1 April 2006 and 1 November 2007 conspired together and with others to commit misconduct in public office contrary to section 1 (1) Criminal Law Act 1977

 

No further action against one individual for misconduct in public office 

A CPS spokesperson said,

“In a separate file, the CPS has today decided that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to one individual, a serving police officer, for an allegation of misconduct in public office. This decision was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s Guidelines on Assessing the Public Interest in Cases Affecting the Media. Accordingly, no further action will be taken against this individual in respect of that allegation.

“Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.”

For editors:

The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

CPS Statement: One individual cautioned for an offence and no further action against another individual for perjury and PCJ

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

“In April 2014 the CPS received a file as part of Operation Tuleta. The file concerned allegations against two individuals of perverting the course of justice and perjury, and an additional allegation of unauthorised access to computer material against the second individual. In relation to the allegations of perjury and perverting the course of justice, it has been decided that no further action should be taken, as there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for any offence.

“Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.

“In relation to the allegation of unauthorised computer access, that individual has been cautioned for an offence contrary to Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1989.

“The evidence was considered carefully in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s guidelines on the public interest in cases affecting the media.

“In accepting a caution an individual accepts responsibility for the offending set out.”

For editors: The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

CPS Statement: One individual faces charges for conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office

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

“In April 2014 the CPS received a file from the Metropolitan Police and we have today authorised the police to charge Anthony France with two offences of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

“Anthony France will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 21st August 2014.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against Anthony France will now be commenced and of his 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.

“These decisions were taken in accordance with the Code of Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s guidelines on the public interest in cases affecting the media. We have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.”

Details of the full charges:

Anthony FRANCE, between the 31st March 2008 and the 1st July 2011, conspired together with Timothy Edwards, and with others unknown, to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977

Anthony FRANCE, between the 19th July 2009 and the 14th August 2009, conspired together with others to commit misconduct in public office, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977

Court refuses to write off Terry Adams debt

A judge today decided that a confiscation order now worth £653,947.74 against Terry Adams remains in force.

Mr Adams had a confiscation order made against him for £750,000 after he had pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2007. Following the sale of his home in north London in 2009, Mr Adams paid the court £234,166.21 and another £130,323.43 following the sale of other assets.

In seeking to have the confiscation order reduced, it was Mr Adams’s case that his current assets were worth less than the outstanding balance of the confiscation order. He claimed that he and his wife were living on expenses of £200 per week, paying rent of £250 and living on £23,000 - £24,000 per annum. However, visits to the Royal Opera House and expensive meals out, spa memberships at luxurious hotels, high cost dental treatments and other treatments at private clinics all indicated a very different lifestyle.

Nick Price, Head of Proceeds of Crime at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Through a series of nefarious means, Terry Adams has consistently sought to hide the proceeds of his crimes. However, today’s judgment is proof of our determination to see that crime doesn’t pay and that those who seek to hide their wealth will be challenged and held to account.  

"Mr Adams argued that he couldn’t afford to pay what he owed and yet his lavish lifestyle showed this was not the case. I’m pleased that, presented with our carefully gathered evidence, the judge has decided that Mr Adams does, in fact, have the ability to pay and has assets that he has not put before the court. We will now work hard to ensure that Mr Adams pays his confiscation order.  

"Many of the criminals we face go to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying what is owed under confiscation orders, such as applying to the High Court to write off debt and hiding their assets. Depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains disrupts organised crime and the new CPS National Proceeds of Crime Service is leading this fight across the country. Dedicated prosecutors will work tirelessly with investigators to claw back assets from those who seek to benefit from their crimes.

Head of the NCA’s Centurion Team, Mark Blackwell said:

“Today’s judgment shows the real value of Lifetime Management and especially Ancillary Orders such as FROs. Terry Adams’ FRO remains in force until 2017 and his Confiscation Order will continue to incur interest until it is settled. The NCA, in partnership with the CPS, will monitor both these Orders very closely.”

Background

Terry Adams pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2007 and a confiscation order was made against him, agreed at £750,000, with a default jail term of 4 years should he fail to pay or make efforts to do so.

Since the confiscation order came into force £369,286.19 has been paid.

A balance of £653,947.74 remains outstanding as of 11^th August 2014. This is subject to interest of 8% p.a. which is accrued daily.

No further action to be taken following the death of Habib Ullah

Habib Ullah, 39, tragically died on Thursday, 3 July 2008 in High Wycombe following a drugs search by Thames Valley Police (TVP) officers.

During the process of search, the police formed the view that Mr Ullah was attempting to conceal a package - believed, correctly, to be drugs - in his mouth. He was asked to remove it but declined to do so. A struggle ensued, culminating in Mr Ullah collapsing and dying.

An Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr Ullah’s death concluded in 2009, without being referred to the CPS, but was re-opened in 2011 after new evidence emerged during police officers’ accounts at his inquest.

As a result, the CPS was asked to consider whether there was sufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution of five TVP officers, as well as in relation to a solicitor who provided advice to those officers in the immediate aftermath of Mr Ullah's death. A file was submitted to CPS in 2014, with the final pieces of evidence submitted to CPS in early June 2014.

The possible offences relating to the death of Mr Ullah considered by the CPS were manslaughter by gross negligence and misconduct in public office. Additionally, given that it became apparent at the inquest that the statements the police officers had originally provided to the IPCC were not the same as their first written accounts, and had received input from lawyers acting for the officers, CPS also considered the offences of perjury and perverting the course of justice.

A CPS spokesperson said: “The case has been thoroughly reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We carefully examined the evidence in this case, including evidence provided by experts in pathology, emergency medicine and policing techniques and accounts from eyewitnesses. We also sought the views of an experienced Queen’s Counsel.”

As a result, the CPS has concluded that:

- The evidence does not enable a causal link to be established, to the criminal standard, between the conduct of any of the officers and Mr Ullah’s death. This causal link would, under law, be required to prosecute any individual for the offence of manslaughter by gross negligence.

- The CPS cannot establish that any alleged breach of the officers’ duties at the scene arose wilfully or deliberately and so a charge of misconduct in public office is not possible.

- There is insufficient evidence to prove that the actions of the officers and solicitor, in altering the statements, tended to and were intended to pervert the course of justice. There is also insufficient evidence to prove that any officer wilfully made a material statement he knew to be false or did not believe to be true. The evidence showed that there was no attempt to conceal that statements had been altered, and indicated that any alterations were intended to give a more accurate version of events, rather than to be misleading.

The CPS spokesperson added: “Since there is insufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of convicting any person of any criminal offence arising from the circumstances of Mr Ullah’s death, we have advised the IPCC that no further criminal action should be taken.

“Our thoughts remain with Mr Ullah’s family at this difficult time for them and we fully understand that this is not the decision they will have wanted. We have written to them to explain our decision in detail and have offered to meet with them to discuss this matter should they so wish.”