CPS News Brief

CPS Wales authorises charging of Mark Bridger

Statement from Iwan Jenkins, District Crown Prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service Cymru-Wales:

“The Crown Prosecution Service has been in close contact with Dyfed Powys Police as their extensive investigation into April’s disappearance has developed. In particular, we have been offering advice and guidance to the police since the suspect Mark Bridger was arrested last Tuesday.

“My role is to examine the evidence that is currently available and advise the police in respect of charges.

“I now have to advise that, having carried out a detailed review of the evidence gathered so far by Dyfed Powys Police, my conclusion is that there is sufficient evidence to charge Mark Bridger with the murder of April Jones, and that it is in the public interest to do so.

“I have also concluded that there is sufficient evidence and that it is in the public interest to charge the defendant with attempting to pervert the course of justice and child abduction.

“Accordingly, I have authorised Dyfed Powys Police to charge him with these offences and he will appear before Aberystwyth Magistrates’ Court on Monday morning.

“I realise that this is an incredibly difficult time for April’s family, friends and the community. My thoughts are with them – and indeed with all those affected by this week’s events.

“The huge public and media interest in this case is understandable. I would just like to stress that, whilst Mark Bridger stands accused of serious criminal charges, he retains the right to a fair trial. I would therefore ask that nothing is placed in the public domain that may undermine the criminal justice process.”

Details of the charges laid against Mark Bridger are as follows:  

Murder, contrary to common law  

Attempting to pervert the course of justice, contrary to common law  

Child abduction, contrary to Section 2 of the Child Abduction Act, 1984

Points for discussion for social media roundtables

Following the Director of Public Prosecution’s previous announcement of the CPS's plans to hold a series of roundtables to discuss the prosecution of cases involving social media, the first of these events will take place on Monday 8 October.

Points for discussion are as follows:

1. What is the balance that should be struck between free speech and the application of the criminal law?

Is it the business of the police and prosecutors to protect the sensibilities of individuals or groups against what many people would consider to be bad taste? Simply because the view expressed is controversial or unpopular and may cause offense is not in itself enough for criminal charges.

2. Is it agreed that Parliament set the threshold in the criminal law high? The law talks about a criminal offence being committed if a message is “grossly offensive” or of a “menacing character”.

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is concerned with “improper use of public communications network” and makes it an offence if a person “sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”.

It is also an offence if a person “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he... sends .. a message that he knows to be false”.

3. When considering whether a prosecution is in the public interest, should one or more of the following make a prosecution more likely? 

• the message is part of a campaign of harassment against an individual or group
• the message is a threat against the life or wellbeing of the recipient and/or the a member of the recipient's family or other loved ones. (Should recipient be “individual”?)
• the message, on an objective consideration, is malicious
• the message is an incitement to hatred on grounds of race, religion, disability, or sexual orientation (and ethnic or national origin?)
• the message causes considerable distress to the recipient and/or their family or loved ones.

Are there any other relevant considerations?

4. When considering whether a prosecution is in the public interest, should one or more of the following make a prosecution less likely? 

• the message is a one-off incident
• the message is intended to be humorous 
• the message is not directed at a specific individual (or group?)
• the message was not intended to become public or become known to the individual who is the subject of the message
• the sender of the message has expressed genuine remorse
• the individual (or individual’s family), subject to the message, is not distressed by the message.

Are there any other relevant considerations?

5. Where should the law be directed if a message is retweeted or resent by another without the knowledge of the initial sender or against their wishes?

6. Should police and prosecutors become involved if the message is sent from outside the UK to an individual living here? Or from the UK to an individual living outside the UK?

7. To what extent are messages being sent by social media an issue for the social media industry rather than the criminal law? Should the industry be active in moderating its sites?

Builder jailed for manslaughter of 3-year-old Meg Burgess

George Collier was today sentenced to two years’ imprisonment over the death of three-year-old Meg Burgess, who died after a wall built by Mr Collier collapsed on top of her.

The jury found Mr Collier guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. His company, Parcol Developments Ltd, based in Conwy, previously pleaded guilty to failure to discharge a duty under Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at work Act 1974 on 7 December 2011.

Rosemary Ainslie, lawyer for the CPS Special Crime division, said:

“This was a tragic case, in which a young girl lost her life.

“Mr Collier was responsible for the design and construction of the wall but did not make sure it was built to safe standards, nor did he prevent members of the public from walking past it, with terrible consequences.

“The jury has found Mr Collier guilty of gross negligence manslaughter and his conviction should act not only as a reminder of the dangers of sub-standard building work but also of the consequences for those who carry it out.

“I extend my deepest sympathies to the family of young Meg Burgess.”

Airline pilot to be prosecuted for duty evasion on cigarettes and alcohol

Lisa Rose, specialist prosecutor for the CPS Central Fraud Division said:

“Following an investigation by HM Revenue and Customs, I have authorised charges against Andrew Dougall Creelman for the alleged fraudulent evasion of duty payable on alcohol and cigarettes.

“Andrew Creelman will face two counts contrary to Section 170(2)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. The allegation is that between 16 October 2010 and 30 December 2011, Andrew Creelman was knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of chargeable duty on excise goods. One count relates to 16,400 king size filter cigarettes and the second count to 20 litres of spirits.

“The loss to the public revenue is estimated to be in excess of £3,400.

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

“He has been served with summons and will appear before City of London Magistrates’ Court on 23 October 2012.

“Andrew Creelman has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial."

DPP refuses to consent to private prosecution of Babar Ahmad and Syed Ahsan for terrorism offences

Statement from Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions:

"On 7 September 2012, I received a request from those representing Mr Karl Watkin for my consent for him to bring a private prosecution against Babar Ahmad and Syed Ahsan for a number of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000. I also received copies of the documents upon which Mr Watkin proposes to rely in support of that prosecution.

"My consent to the offences in question can only be given with the permission of the Attorney General and I have therefore consulted him before arriving at my decision.

"When considering whether to give consent, I am required to follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors. I therefore have to consider whether there is sufficient evidence, which is both admissible and reliable, to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, I have to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

"The material provided to me in support of the proposed private prosecution has been carefully considered by a specialist lawyer in the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division. The same material has also been considered by my Principal Legal Advisor, Alison Levitt QC.

"The material comprises two statements and a number of documents. The two statements purport to have been signed by Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan themselves but they are very short, lack any meaningful detail and do not provide any real support for a prosecution.

"Most of the documents provided appear to have been printed off from websites. As they stand, they are probably inadmissible in evidence but, in any event, they do not provide the necessary links between Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan and the charges that Mr Watkin proposes to bring under the Terrorism Act 2000. Any prosecution on such material alone would be bound to fail.

"The letter seeking my consent to the private prosecution of Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan also makes reference to material held by the Metropolitan Police Service and to material provided by the United States of America and suggests that this material might be of use in the proposed private prosecution. Although not strictly required to do so for the purpose of dealing with Mr Watkin’s request for consent to a private prosecution, I will address both of these suggestions.

"So far as any material held by the police is concerned, in 2004 only a small number of documents relating to Mr Ahmad were submitted to the CPS for advice (there has never been a domestic investigation into Mr Ahsan). However, in the past few months the Metropolitan Police Service has reviewed its position in relation to Mr Ahmad following separate correspondence between the CPS and solicitors acting for Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan. The review by the Metropolitan Police Service included consideration of information that Saajid Badat provided prior to signing an agreement with the CPS under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

"I therefore asked that enquiries be made of the Metropolitan Police Service to ascertain whether, as a result of the recent review, the police intended to send further documents or any other material to the CPS to consider in Mr Ahmad’s case. Had more documents or material been supplied, the CPS would have considered that material alongside the material supplied in support of the proposed private prosecution. However, I have received written confirmation that the Metropolitan Police Service do not intend to refer any further documents or other material to the CPS for consideration.

"So far as the material provided by the United States of America is concerned, any suggestion that it could be used in support of a prosecution in England and Wales is misconceived. That material was provided in accordance with the requirements of the Extradition Act 2003 solely for use in the extradition proceedings, which relate to the wider charges alleged in that jurisdiction. The public summary of the U.S. indictment provided by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan are charged with:

“… providing material support of terrorism, conspiring to kill U.S. nationals, and money laundering. It is alleged that Ahmad and Ahsan, through an entity known as “Azzam Publications,” were members of a group that provided material support to the Taliban and the Chechen Mujahideen through various means, including the administration and operation of various web sites promoting violent jihad. The Azzam Publications websites, including, e.g., Azzam.com and Qoqaz.net, were hosted for a period of time through the services of a web-hosting company located in Connecticut. The indictment alleges that the defendants, using both cyberspace and real-world efforts, assisted the Taliban and the Chechen Mujahideen through money laundering, as well as by providing funds, military equipment, communication equipment, lodging, training, expert advice and assistance, facilities, personnel, transportation and other supplies, with the knowledge and intent that such conduct would support the military activities of these and associated groups. The indictment also alleges that, during a search of Ahmad’s residence in the United Kingdom in December 2003, Ahmad was found in the possession of an electronic document containing what were previously classified plans regarding the makeup, advance movements and mission of a United States Naval battle group as it was transiting from California to its deployment in the Middle East. The document discussed the battle group’s perceived vulnerability to terrorist attack.”

"The underlying evidence in support of these alleged offences is in the possession of the USA.

"In the circumstances, I have refused to give my consent to Mr Watkin to bring a private prosecution against Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan for offences under the Terrorism Act 2000."

Prison officers sentenced following death in custody

Married prison officers Shaun and Lisa Percy were today sentenced at Preston Crown Court following the death of a prisoner, Christopher Oldham, during the night of 21/22 April 2011 at HMP Preston. They each received 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years, and were ordered to perform 200 hours of unpaid work.

Neil Dalton, special crime lawyer for the Crown Prosecution Service said:

“Shaun and Lisa Percy, who worked alongside each other as wardens at HMP Preston, had over 20 years’ experience in the Prison Service but wilfully neglected to carry out the duties required of them.

“Shaun Percy was personally responsible for monitoring at risk prisoners but deliberately failed to carry out the necessary checks. Indeed, Christopher Oldham had died almost three hours before Shaun Percy checked on him. Percy’s office was just feet away from the cell, but CCTV shows that he checked on Christopher just twice that night. CCTV also shows that Percy completed his ‘pegging’, which means he passed Christopher’s cell every half an hour as required, but failed to look inside.

“Instead, Percy fabricated entries on the log, claiming that Christopher was lying on his bed watching television and even recorded Christopher telling him he was ‘OK’.

“When Lisa Percy was notified of the death, she tried to cover up her husband’s failings by entering false entries on the prison log and forging her husband’s signature next to them.

“Prison officers owe an important duty of care towards their prisoners and checks exist for a reason.

“This has been a sad and distressing case and I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to Christopher’s family.”

Shaun and Lisa Percy pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office at Preston Crown Court on 5 July 2012.

Op Elveden charge: DCI Casburn charged

Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the DPP, said:

“The CPS received a file of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service which arose from Operation Elveden in relation to April Casburn. Ms Casburn is employed by Metropolitan Police Service as a Detective Chief Inspector in Specialist Operations.

“We have concluded, having carefully considered the file of evidence, that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to charge DCI Casburn with misconduct in public office. The particulars are that on 11 September 2010, April Casburn, being a public officer, and acting as such, without reasonable excuse or justification, wilfully misconducted herself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in that office. This charge relates to an allegation that DCI Casburn contacted the News of the World newspaper and offered to provide information.

“DCI Casburn will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday 1 October.

“May I remind all concerned that DCI Casburn is now charged with a criminal offence and 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."

Three people jailed for stealing a hospital power cable

Thieves who stole a power cable from a Shropshire hospital, which was connected to a mobile MRI scanner, were today sentenced to a total of two and a half years at Shrewsbury Crown Court.

Ricky Filmer, aged 23, Eric Bennett, 24 and a youth who cannot be named for legal reasons, all pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to stealing a 10 metre cable which provided electricity to the mobile scanner.

Stephen Bacon, Senior Crown Prosecutor from West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“This was a thoughtless and irresponsible offence that caused the cancellation of numerous appointments for MRI scans and risked this vital piece of equipment being irreparably damaged.

“These individuals’ actions were motivated by greed and they gave little regard to the damage that they caused or the wellbeing of others.

“The CPS is determined to take a firm stand against metal thieves and, in accordance with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ specific guidelines on metal theft, will highlight the widespread public harm caused by these acts, beyond the monetary value of the goods stolen, which will allow the court to sentence appropriately.”

Background:

In the early hours of 12 May 2012, police officers stopped a van which contained the defendants and, during their search of the vehicle, they found a large length of cable along with a hacksaw. Later that morning, the police received a call from the Nuffield Hospital in Shrewsbury to report the theft of a power cable.

The court heard that the cost to the Nuffield Hospital for replacing the cable was £8,839.

Filmer was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, Bennett to 16 months imprisonment. The youth was sentenced to a 12 month Youth Rehabilitation Order and 100 hours’ unpaid work.

Dale Cregan charged with four murders

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

“The tragic events this week in which Police Constables Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes lost their lives in the line of duty have shocked and appalled the whole country. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sympathies to their families, friends and to all their colleagues in Greater Manchester Police on their very sad loss.

“I have today authorised the police to charge 29-year-old Dale Cregan with their murders and with the murders of Mark Short, who was killed at the Cotton Tree Inn in Droylsden on 25 May, and David Short, who was killed at his home in Clayton on 10 August. Cregan has also been charged with the attempted murders of Michael Belcher, Ryan Pridding and John Short on 25 May and Sharon Hark on 10 August.

“He will appear in custody at Manchester City Magistrates’ Court tomorrow.

“The CPS and Greater Manchester Police are absolutely determined to deliver justice for those who have been killed and for their families, and we will continue working closely during the ongoing investigations into these deaths.

“May I remind all concerned that as Dale Cregan has now been charged with criminal offences, it is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice that trial and jeopardise the course of justice in this case. For these reasons I am not able to comment further about the case at this time.”

Men will not face charges over allegations of Female Genital Mutilation

The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that no charges will be brought against two men arrested in Birmingham on suspicion of offences contrary to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.

Harry Ireland, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the West Midlands Area, said:

“I have advised West Midlands Police to release two men from police bail over allegations concerning female genital mutilation.

“Doctor Ali Haji Mao-Aweys and Doctor Omar Sheikh Mohamed Addow were arrested in May following a newspaper report in which it was alleged they were willing to carry out genital mutilation on two young girls after being approached by a woman posing as the girls’ aunt, but who was actually working as an undercover journalist or agent of some sort.

“Having carefully reviewed the evidence obtained by the police, I have decided there should be no further action against either of these two men. The case has been reviewed according to the Code for Crown Prosecutors and there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.

“The main evidence in this case is from the undercover journalist or agent but she has consistently failed to sign her draft statement for the police despite being given every opportunity to do so over the past five months.

“I also have concerns over discrepancies between her draft statement and the evidence from the covert recordings, for example, at one stage the covert recordings record the doctors refusing to help the woman with her request.

“I am also troubled by the fact that the covert recordings disclose a time gap which is insufficiently accounted for when the undercover journalist or agent apparently went with one of the doctor’s from the surgery to his home. Unless there is a very compelling explanation for this, the covert evidence is very unlikely to be admissible in evidence. That explanation has not been forthcoming.

“A search of the suspects’ homes, computers and phones failed to provide any evidence that they were involved in any way in this illegal practice. A financial investigation has also found no evidence of suspicious transactions which might then merit further investigation.

“We have a duty to release suspects from bail if the evidence is not there to merit a prosecution, which is why I have advised the police in this case to do that today.”

 

DPP statement on Tom Daley case and social media prosecutions

Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has said:

“On 30 July 2012 Daniel Thomas, a semi-professional footballer, posted a homophobic message on the social networking site, Twitter. This related to the Olympic divers Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield. This became available to his “followers”. Someone else distributed it more widely and it made its way into some media outlets. Mr Thomas was arrested and interviewed. The matter was then referred to CPS Wales to consider whether Mr Thomas should be charged with a criminal offence.

“The Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a communication using a public electronic communications network if that communication is “grossly offensive”. It is now established that posting comments via Twitter constitutes sending a message by means of a public electronic communications network. It is also clear that the offence is committed once the message is sent, irrespective of whether it is received by any intended recipient or anyone else. The question in this case is therefore whether the message posted by Mr Thomas is so grossly offensive as to be criminal and, if so, whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

“There is no doubt that the message posted by Mr Thomas was offensive and would be regarded as such by reasonable members of society. But the question for the CPS is not whether it was offensive, but whether it was so grossly offensive that criminal charges should be brought. The distinction is an important one and not easily made. Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights observed in the case of Handyside v UK (1976), the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions “…that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”.

“The context and circumstances in this case include the following facts and matters:

(a) However misguided, Mr Thomas intended the message to be humorous.

(b) However naïve, Mr Thomas did not intend the message to go beyond his followers, who were mainly friends and family.

(c) Mr Thomas took reasonably swift action to remove the message.

(d) Mr Thomas has expressed remorse and was, for a period, suspended by his football club.

(e) Neither Mr Daley nor Mr Waterfield were the intended recipients of the message and neither knew of its existence until it was brought to their attention following reports in the media.

“This was, in essence, a one-off offensive Twitter message, intended for family and friends, which made its way into the public domain. It was not intended to reach Mr Daley or Mr Waterfield, it was not part of a campaign, it was not intended to incite others and Mr Thomas removed it reasonably swiftly and has expressed remorse. Against that background, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales, Jim Brisbane, has concluded that on a full analysis of the context and circumstances in which this single message was sent, it was not so grossly offensive that criminal charges need to be brought.

“Before reaching a final decision in this case, Mr Daley and Mr Waterfield were consulted by the CPS and both indicated that they did not think this case needed a prosecution.

“This case is one of a growing number involving the use of social media that the CPS has had to consider. There are likely to be many more. The recent increase in the use of social media has been profound. It is estimated that on Twitter alone there are 340 million messages sent daily. And the context in which this interactive social media dialogue takes place is quite different to the context in which other communications take place. Access to social media is ubiquitous and instantaneous. Banter, jokes and offensive comment are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions.

“Against that background, the CPS has the task of balancing the fundamental right of free speech and the need to prosecute serious wrongdoing on a case by case basis. That often involves very difficult judgment calls and, in the largely unchartered territory of social media, the CPS is proceeding on a case by case basis. In some cases it is clear that a criminal prosecution is the appropriate response to conduct which is complained about, for example where there is a sustained campaign of harassment of an individual, where court orders are flouted or where grossly offensive or threatening remarks are made and maintained. But in many other cases a criminal prosecution will not be the appropriate response. If the fundamental right to free speech is to be respected, the threshold for criminal prosecution has to be a high one and a prosecution has to be required in the public interest.

“To ensure that CPS decision-making in these difficult cases is clear and consistent, I intend to issue guidelines on social media cases for prosecutors. These will assist them in deciding whether criminal charges should be brought in the cases that arise for their consideration. In the first instance, the CPS will draft interim guidelines. There will then be a wide public consultation before final guidelines are published. As part of that process, I intend to hold a series of roundtable meetings with campaigners, media lawyers, academics, social media experts and law enforcement bodies to ensure that the guidelines are as fully informed as possible.

“But this is not just a matter for prosecutors. Social media is a new and emerging phenomenon raising difficult issues of principle, which have to be confronted not only by prosecutors but also by others including the police, the courts and service providers. The fact that offensive remarks may not warrant a full criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean that no action should be taken. In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media.”

Umran Javed sentenced for possession of terrorist material

Umran Javed was today sentenced at the Old Bailey to 12 months for three counts of possessing a document or record likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism.

David Hurlstone, CPS specialist prosecutor, said:

“Javed is a dangerous criminal who was found in possession of prohibited terrorist material.

“The documents not only contained detailed instructions on how to carry out an assassination as part of Jihad, but also suggested preferred targets and identified the nationalities of those to be targeted in order of ‘importance’.

“Terrorism takes many forms and this conviction sends a clear message that possession of this kind of material is criminal.”

Background:

Javed pleaded on 31 August 2012 to three counts contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

On 5 January 2007 the defendant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of offences of Soliciting Murder and Stirring Up Racial Hatred for which he was sentenced to a total of 6 years imprisonment on 18 July 2007. That sentence was later reduced to 4 years on appeal.

Statement on 'Nappy Valley' muggings story

Following an article in yesterday's Evening Standard, please see below the full statement that was provided to the paper.

Alison Saunders, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London, said:

“We were first asked to make a formal charging decision on 8 September 2011 and we authorised a charge of conspiracy to rob against all three defendants the same day. It was clear that these were serious criminal acts and the case was given our full attention from the outset through to the convictions of the defendants.

“We endeavoured to answer the questions put to us by victims as fully as possible and offered to meet them in November 2011 to discuss their concerns. Info rmation was withheld only if it could have influenced the evidence that they might have given in court. At the conclusion of the trial, we met with those with concerns and their questions were answered fully and frankly.

“I have reviewed this case and I am clear that our staff were professional, thorough and correct at all times in their approach. The convictions and lengthy prison sentences that were obtained are a testament to the quality of their work.”

Additional information

On the selection of counsel

Alison Morgan, recently appointed by the Attorney General as Junior Treasury Counsel , is a highly respected and capable barrister, having acted as counsel in the trials of Dobson and Norris for the murder of Stephen Lawrence and those involved in the attempted suicide bombings on 21/7. The decision to appoint her was based solely on her seniority, expertise and skill, not a desire to save money, and she was assisted by junior counsel throughout.

On the independent review

Counsel was instructed to review the case on 3 November 2011 and advice was received shortly afterwards. The victims were informed that this review had been ordered in a letter from Alison Saunders on 18 November and made aware that it would not be appropriate to discuss the review’s outcome given that they could be called as witnesses.

On prosecuting particular allegations

Byom, Will iams and Lord were charged with conspiracy to rob in September 2011 under the Threshold Test. This test is applied when there is insufficient evidence to meet the standard under the Full Code Test (which requires sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction), but the evidence is expected to be become available soon afterwards. Applying the Full Code Test in November 2011, we decided that the evidence supplied by the police in relation to a small number of victims was insufficient to put forward as part of the prosecution case. We explained why we were not proceeding with these aspects of the case to those who raised concerns and made clear that we would reconsider if further evidence became available. In relation to one victim, the police provided the CPS and counsel with further evidence in January 2012 and we concluded that there was a realistic prospect of conviction to put an additional allegation before the jury as part of the conspiracy. We appreciate this is a complex legal process and gave a full explanation to the victims at the time of what had happened.

On the ‘exceptional issues of a nature not encountered previously’

The issue referred to was not related to the prosecution’s conduct of this case.

Lee Sandell charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the DPP, said:

“The CPS received a file of evidence in relation to Lee Sandell from the Metropolitan Police Service on 9 August 2012. This file of evidence arose from Operation Sacha, the investigation into allegations of perverting the course of justice. Mr Sandell was employed by News International in a security role.

“We have concluded, having carefully considered the file of evidence, that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to charge Mr Sandell with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

“Mr Sandell will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Thursday 13 September.

“May I remind all concerned that Mr Sandell will now be charged with a criminal offence 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."

Background information

• This statement is issued in the interests of transparency and accountability.
• Alison Levitt QC oversees CPS decision making, and potential prosecutions, in relation to the ongoing phone hacking investigations and other related matters.
• Lee Sandell is the sixth defendant to be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in relation to the events of 15-19 July 2011. The charges arising from Operation Sacha are therefore now the following:

1. CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE Rebekah Brooks between 6th July and 19th July 2011 conspired with Charles Brooks, Cheryl Carter, Mark Hanna, Paul Edwards, Daryl Jorsling and persons unknown to conceal material from officers of the Metropolitan Police Service

2. CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE Rebekah Brooks and Cheryl Carter between 6th July and 9th July 2011 conspired together permanently to remove seven boxes of material from the archive of News International.

3. CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE Lee Sandell, Rebekah Brooks, Charles Brooks, Mark Hanna, Paul Edwards, and Daryl Jorsling on a day between 15th July 2011 and 19th July 2011 conspired together, and with persons unknown, to do an act or series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice, namely to conceal documents, computers and other electronic devices, from officers of the Metropolitan Police Service who were investigating allegations of phone hacking and corruption of public officials in relation to the News of the World and The Sun newspapers. Contrary to Section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977.

Man charged with manslaughter in Oldham explosion case

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

“I have today advised Greater Manchester Police to charge Andrew Partington, 26, with the manslaughter of Jamie Heaton, aged two, and causing criminal damage valued at over £1m to houses in Buckley Street, Shaw, Oldham, on 26 June 2012.

“Police were called to the scene of a gas explosion in Buckley Street at around 11.15am where two houses, number nine and number 11, were destroyed in the blast and other homes damaged. The seat of the blast was in number nine and Jamie, who was in the living room of his home at number 11 watching television, died as a result of the explosion. I would like to express my sympathy to Mr and Mrs Heaton on their tragic loss.

“After considering the evidence, I am satisfied there is sufficient to charge Andrew Partington with manslaughter and criminal damage. The decision was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“He will appear at Oldham Magistrates Court later today.”