CPS News Brief

Man charged over social media messages

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

“The CPS has today authorised the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Peter Nunn, 33, from Bristol, under section 127 of the Communications Act (2003) over messages allegedly sent to Stella Creasy MP.

"This case was reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and guidelines issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media.

"Peter Nunn will now appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 6 February 2014.

"May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant 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." 

Woman convicted of acid attack on former friend

Mary Konye, 21, was convicted today at Snaresbrook Crown Court for applying a corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The attack occurred in Dagenham on 30 December 2012 and the victim, Naomi Oni, was left with life-altering injuries.

Baljit Ubhey, CPS London Chief Crown Prosecutor, said:

“The use of acid as a weapon is cruel and horrifying. It can have a devastating effect on victims and can cause long term pain and disfigurement as well as emotional and psychological harm.

“The attack in the early hours of 30 December left Naomi with shocking injuries, including deep chemical burns to her face, neck, forearm and thigh.

“This was an extremely brutal attack committed as Naomi made her way home from work. Mary Konye disguised herself in a niqab and followed the victim from her workplace in Stratford to her home in Dagenham. As she got off a bus near her home the defendant threw sulphuric acid over her, then fled the scene.

“Mary Konye and the victim used to be friends and they had discussed the high profile case of Katie Piper who was the victim of an acid attack in 2008, and how Naomi had been particularly moved and upset by her story. Konye exploited this fear to cause maximum harm and her defence of suggesting that the victim would have thrown acid on herself was contemptible.

“Konye has now been brought to justice and must face the full consequences of her appalling actions.

“I would to like praise Naomi’s courage and dignity in giving evidence during this trial.”

CPS decision on investigation into police handling of protected witness in Kevin Nunes murder case

Simon Orme, specialist lawyer in the CPS Special Crime decision, said:

“I have been asked to consider evidence in relation to six former or serving Staffordshire police officers to determine whether or not they should be prosecuted in relation to their handling of a protected witness in connection with the murder of Kevin Nunes in 2002.

“The investigation into the matter has been conducted in two parts. These decisions relate to the first part of the investigation, namely the allegations that those dealing with the protected witness and their immediate supervisors had perverted the course of justice by failing to record and report that he had potentially stolen a sum of money.

“I have determined there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of convicting five of the six officers for this offence. A decision in relation to the sixth officer will be made following submission of evidence relating to the second part of the investigation.

“To prove an offence of perverting the course of justice the prosecution would need to demonstrate that the failure to document the potential theft was a deliberate act intended to pervert the course of justice.

“It was alleged the incident was not recorded in an attempt to cover-up the witness’s misbehaviour and present him in a better light. However, detailed recording of many other incidents that illustrated his misbehaviour undermines this suggestion and there is insufficient evidence to prove any other motive.

“The only evidence to support the allegation that the five officers conspired together to pervert the course of justice by collectively agreeing to omit details of alleged theft is statements allegedly made by one officer to another. I have determined that these would not be admissible as hearsay evidence and there is no other evidence to support the allegations.

“As such I have determined no charges should brought against any of the five officers.

“I was also asked to consider one allegation of theft of a mobile phone by one of the five officers. On the available evidence, including documentation relating to the purchase of communications equipment by police, it is not possible to determine exactly what was bought, or that the police officer then kept a specific mobile phone for his personal use. I have therefore determined there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an offence of theft has been committed and no charges should be brought.

“We await the submission of a complete file of evidence in relation to the second part of this investigation.”

 

Notes to Editors

A copy of the Court of Appeal judgement in this case is available here.