UK Archives -

UK Court clears man with severe learning difficulties of 1990 London murder

Leave a Comment / Uncategorized / Superlaw Admin

Oliver Campbell, a man with severe learning difficulties who was jailed for life for the murder of a shopkeeper three decades ago after confessing in police interviews, has had his convictions quashed by the court of appeal. The judgment clearing Campbell, 54, of conspiracy to rob and murder ends what has been described as one of the longest miscarriages of justice in British criminal history, and will throw a new focus on past policing failures and the current approach of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). Campbell said: “The fight for justice is finally over after nearly 34 years. I can start my life an innocent man.” Campbell, who suffered a severe brain injury as a baby, was convicted at the age of 21 at the Old Bailey in 1991 of the murder of a London off-licence keeper, Baldev Hoondle, after confessing during the 11th of 14 police interviews, some of which were carried out without a solicitor. The court of appeal heard from expert witnesses that Campbell had an IQ of 73 and scored “abnormally high” for acquiescence, with an “extreme tendency to just, when in doubt, say yes”. His barrister, Michael Birnbaum KC, told the court police had “badgered and bullied” him into giving a false confession. Although the judges said they had not seen evidence of police bullying, an expert witness who gave evidence at the original trial concluded upon reviewing the case that he had not properly understood Campbell’s vulnerabilities at the time of the trial or appeal. Other evidence linking Campbell to the murder had been his recently bought British Knights baseball cap, said by a witness to have been worn by the gunman and found near the scene of the crime, and a friendship with Eric Samuels, a then 26-year-old man who admitted being part of a robbery of the off-licence on Lower Clapton Road in Hackney, east London, at 10.30pm on 22 July 1990. But Samuels, who was subsequently jailed for five years for robbery but not murder, named a different man, known only as Harvey, as his accomplice in a statement to police. Campbell had bought a British Knights cap eight days before the murder but had given it away soon after, according to a witness, and there were hair samples in the cap that did not belong to Campbell or Samuels. The gunman was also said to be right-handed, while Campbell is left-handed. Hoondle’s son, Hardip, was in the off-licence when his father was shot in the head, and gave a description of the gunman, who he said had been wearing a British Knights cap. He did not pick out Campbell in an identity parade, and a second witness outside the shop gave an estimate of the height of the wearer of the cap as several inches shorter than Campbell’s 1.90m (6ft 3in). Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Bourne and Mrs Justice Stacey, ruled that statements from Samuels, who has since died, which exonerated Campbell were now admissible as evidence, but that the greatest weight in their judgment was given to the risk that the confessions to police had been false. Holroyde wrote that many of the points the defence team made had already been made in the original trial, and that the alleged absurdity of the confessions were “equally inaccurate or absurd at the time of the trial”. But he added: “The principal reason for our disquiet arises from the fact that the fresh evidence would provide a court with the benefit of much more information than was available at the trial about the appellant’s mental state when he made his confessions. “As a result of the fresh expert evidence, the whole approach to the case would now be informed by a different and better understanding of relevant factors. “Even if all the evidence of confessions were admitted, a jury knowing of the fresh evidence would be considering the reliability of those confessions in a materially different context. In those circumstances, we cannot say that the fresh evidence could not reasonably have affected the decision of the jury to convict. “On that narrow but very important basis, we have concluded that the convictions are unsafe.” Glyn Maddocks KC, who has represented Campbell for more than two decades, broke the news to his client of the court of appeal’s decision at 10.30am on Wednesday as the judgment was published. “There was a lot of whooping and excitement from all his supporters around him, yeah,” he said. “So he was absolutely thrilled. It’s been a hell of a journey for him. He’s kept me going, in a way, through the quiet periods.” Campbell spent 11 years in prison before being released on licence in 2002. The CCRC previously reviewed his case after an application in 1999 but made a decision not to refer it to the court of appeal in 2005. The CCRC finally referred the case to the court of appeal in November 2022 on the grounds of “modern standards of fairness” and a change in expert opinion. Maddocks said there had not been much difference between the 1999 admission to the CCRC and the latest effort, but that he believed a speech in the House of Commons by the then Labour MP Sandy Martin in 2019 calling for a fresh review had unlocked the case. “I think one of the reasons they turned it down [in 2005] was that they went to Eric Samuels at that time. They got him separately represented,” Maddocks said. “But he was too worried about being prosecuted again in the early 2000s and no one gave him an immunity. “I think they talked about it, but they could have gone to the CPS and said, you know, the CPS will give you an immunity against prosecution. I think they were sort of slightly half-hearted about it, but that was one of the reasons they decided not to turn it down. Because he was uncooperative. “I’m not criticising them, to be honest. I

UK Court clears man with severe learning difficulties of 1990 London murder Read More »

Article: Attorneys At Risk Because Right-Wingers In The U.K. Can’t Take An ‘L’

Lawyers are fleeing their homes under the threat of violence. Last month, current British Prime Minister Keir Starmer won the role in a landslide victory. Starmer quickly canceled his predecessor’s, Rishi Sunak, planned mass deportations of “illegal immigrants.” Then the tragic Southport stabbing, which left three children dead, happened and fake rumors (easily debunked) calling the assailant an asylum-seeker or a Muslim immigrant began spreading on sympathetic social media outlets. Now riots are sweeping through the United Kingdom in a wave of anti-immigrant violence. So far, 420 people were arrested and 140 charged, with Starmer promising they “will feel full force of law.” But more unrest is expected. The far-right groups instigating the violence have published online a list of potential targets. This list contains the names and addresses of attorneys and immigration centers, among others. All together, 39 individuals and organizations have been targeted. As reported by Legal Cheek: Details have been shared widely on social media platform X, with one post including a link to the list stating: “Wednesday night lads. They won’t stop coming until YOU tell them. No more immigration 8PM. Mask up.” The message also features a number of flame Emojis. As reported by the Law Gazette, there is “serious concern” for the safety of the attorneys on the list. Those identified by the hate groups have been notified of the potential threat. And the Law Society has issued guidelines to maximize the safety of those singled out. Many of the lawyers at these firms and other immigration practices are working from home, but the Society stresses that those who are in the office should take extra care when leaving and should be away before 8pm. The Society advises: ‘If attending the office, make sure you are not working alone and that you are aware of all points of entry and exit, including fire escapes. If possible, do not work close to a window and make sure all office windows are closed and doors are locked.’ Lawyers should only take online appointments and meetings and firms should consider whether it is appropriate to temporarily remove addresses or individual contact details. Immigration solicitor Naveed Mukhtar’s home address was published on the list. He described the terror induced, “You just panic. You just think that something worse is going to happen. For me when you talk about home and you are living there with your three daughters who are little ones, you just feel scared. I said to my wife and children: ‘Get everything in the bag, we have just got to go.’” Law Society president Nick Emmerson said, “I have written to the prime minister, lord chancellor and home secretary today asking that the threats against the legal profession are treated with the utmost seriousness. A direct assault on our legal profession is a direct assault on our democratic values and we are supporting our members who are being targeted.” To those legal professionals targeted, and those counter protestors standing up to the violent anti-immigration hate, stay safe out there. Kathryn Rubino

Article: Attorneys At Risk Because Right-Wingers In The U.K. Can’t Take An ‘L’ Read More »

UK Immigration lawyers ‘at risk’ amid far-right threats to target advice centres

Leave a Comment / Foreign News, News / Superlaw Admin

Police chiefs announce deployment of extra 2,200 riot officers as list of 60 immigration centres circulated online Immigration lawyers have been warned to take extra security measures or stay away from work amid far-right threats to target their firms, with legal groups blaming political attacks on the profession for fuelling abuse. The Law Society and Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) said their members were at risk, after a list of up to 60 immigration advice centres was circulated on Telegram with a message suggesting they should be the target of protests on Wednesday. Several prominent lawyers said the political rhetoric of Conservative politicians over the years, from Boris Johnson to Suella Braverman demonising “lefty lawyers” for working on asylum cases, had contributed to the far-right threat. After a week of violent disorder in areas across England and Northern Ireland, police chiefs said on Tuesday that an extra 2,200 riot-trained officers would be deployed to combat the unrest. Keir Starmer held another Cobra meeting to coordinate the government’s response with police chiefs, while Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, said some of those causing the violent disorder could be charged with terrorism offences. Violence so far has targeted mosques, community buildings such as libraries, hotels housing asylum seekers, and shops. But attention turned to immigration law and advice centres after a list of up to 60 of them was circulated this week. Some of the addresses on the list were later found to be wrong – with one occupied by an elderly woman. Politicians such as Labour MPs Stella Creasy and Sarah Sackman raised concerns over centres being named in their constituencies of Walthamstow and Finchley in London, saying they were in touch with police about the safety of residents. The Community Security Trust, which monitors and investigates antisemitism in Britain, has also warned that the Jewish community might be targeted and raised concerns over attacks. The Law Society of England and Wales has written to Starmer and Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, warning that a “direct assault on our legal profession is a direct assault on our democratic values”. Its president, Nick Emmerson, saidthat immigration lawyers were providing an accessible service and were frightened about “a very real frontline threat”. “There is an atmosphere of intimidation that has gone beyond this list. This list itself is gaining momentum but people who give immigration advice are at risk,” he said. He said political attacks on lawyers under the previous government had “contributed to the atmosphere of intimidation”, and that the current threat was “an extension of that, and it is a physical manifestation of that”. “Who knows if it is going to last more than one day? People are being asked to mask up on one day. That’s distressing enough but if this is a way of doing business going forward that is not sustainable. This fundamentally should not be happening at all,” he said. Mahmood, the lord chancellor, said: “Every day, across the country, solicitors uphold the rule of law. Inciting mobs to attack their offices, or threatening them in any way, is unacceptable. Those found doing so will face the full force of the law. They will join the hundreds of others who have already been arrested by police within the last week.” Dominic Grieve, a former Conservative attorney general, said: “I’m afraid that immigration lawyers being targeted does suggest to me this is one of the consequences of politicians having attacked them in the past … I think it would be a very good thing to do to say lawyers uphold the rule of law.” Jacqueline McKenzie, a lawyer for Leigh Day, who was previously the target of a Tory dossier attacking her work for migrant clients, said the political attacks on immigration lawyers had put them at risk. “It all started with the attacks on ‘lefty lawyers’ … to bring us into the fray has put a target on our backs,” she said. Starmer, she said, should do more to counter the toxic narrative around immigration and that the current response had been “mealy mouthed” from the government. “Governments are just going to keep on making the same mistakes; allowing people to attribute all problems to migrants will fuel a race war, and put all black and brown people, not just immigration lawyers, at risk,” McKenzie said. Hazar El-Chamaa, the chair of trustees at the ILPA, said the group stood in solidarity with migrants and called on the government to support lawyers performing their professional duties by “representing and upholding the human rights of migrants and those targeted based on their appearance, without fear for our safety”. “Where our security is threatened as a result of carrying out our essential and proper function in a democracy, the government and law enforcement agencies should investigate and monitor threats to our safety,” he said. “We urge Sir Keir Starmer’s government to take urgent steps to bring an end to the violence and to foster a society which welcomes and cares for our communities and all those in need of protection. We call on the government to stand with us.” Police chiefs have decided to dramatically increase the number of riot officers deployed, after violence over the weekend continued on Monday and Tuesday. They are also braced for potentially 30 different demonstrations planned for Wednesday, and are assessing the credibility of an online document listing targets, many of which are connected to immigration and asylum. Almost 4,000 riot officers have already been deployed across England and Wales. Some faced violence in their own force area, and some were sent to help out other forces that were under strain over the weekend. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, told chief constables in a call on Tuesday that their forces would receive support for overtime pay and any other resources they required when dealing with public disorder In total there are 18,000 specially trained public order or riot officers in England and Wales. The decision to increase the number deployed means

UK Immigration lawyers ‘at risk’ amid far-right threats to target advice centres Read More »

UK Home Office tells Ghanaian man he is not British after 42 years in UK

Leave a Comment / Foreign News, News / Superlaw Admin

A retired 74-year-old Ghanaian man who has lived in the UK for nearly 50 years must wait a decade before the Home Office will let him stay permanently. Nelson Shardey, from Wallasey in Wirral, had for many years assumed he was officially seen as British. He only discovered otherwise in 2019 and, despite paying taxes all his adult life, now faces paying thousands of pounds to stay and use the NHS. The Home Office declined to comment on the ongoing legal case. ‘Never queried’ Retired newsagent Mr Shardey first came to the UK in 1977 to study accountancy, on a student visa that also allowed him to work. After a coup in his native Ghana his family could no longer send him money for the fees. He took on a series of jobs, making Mother’s Pride bread and Kipling’s Cakes near Southampton, and Bendick’s Chocolate in Winchester, and said no-one ever queried his right to live or work in the UK. He married a British woman and moved to Wallasey to run his own business, a newsagent called Nelson’s News. When that marriage ended, he married another British woman and they had two sons Jacob and Aaron. “I tried my utmost to educate them the best way I could, so that neither of them would depend on social or anything,” Mr Shardey said. He told his sons to “learn hard, get a good job, and work for themselves”, and both went on to university and then careers as a research scientist and a public relations executive. Nelson Shardey A family photograph of Nelson Shardey, Aaron and Jacob Nelson Shardey with his two sons when they were young Mr Shardey said he had never left the UK, as he saw no need to and regarded it as his home. “Nobody questioned me. I bought all my things on credit, even the house. “I got a mortgage. And nobody questioned me about anything,” he said. Mr Shardey has performed jury service, and in 2007 was given a police award for bravery after tackling a robber who was attacking a delivery man with a baseball bat. Nelson Shardey Nelson Shardey being handed a police bravery award Nelson Shardey receiving his police bravery award in 2007 But in 2019, when he applied for a passport so he could go back to Ghana following the death of his mother, he was told he was not British. The Home Office said he had no right to be in the UK. ‘I can’t afford to pay’ Officials told him to apply for the 10-year route to settlement, designed for people who want to move to the UK for work. Over the 10 years it costs about £7,000, with a further £10,500 over the same period to access the NHS. “I cannot afford to pay any part of the money they are asking,” said Mr Shardey, who is recovering from prostrate cancer. “Telling me to go through that route is a punishment, and it’s not fair in any way.” “I don’t understand why this fuss at all, because I put my life, my whole self into this country. ” When he tried to extend his right to stay in the UK online two years ago, he filled out the wrong form. That meant the 10-year process had to begin again in 2023. As a result, Mr Shardey will not be allowed to stay in the UK permanently until he is 84. “I just thought it was a joke. It’s just ridiculous,” said his son Jacob, who does research in cardiovascular physiology. “Why would he need to go and start this 10-year route when he’s been here since 1977? “He’s been here longer than the people who are working in the Home Office on his case have been alive.” ‘Exceptional facts’ With the help of Nicola Burgess, a lawyer at Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit (GMIAU), Mr Shardey is now taking the Home Office to court. His case – which his sons are trying to pay for through crowdfunding – is that the Home Office should have treated him as an exception because of the length of time he has been in the UK, and because of his bravery award and service to the community. “We know that at least one caseworker has looked at his file and suggested that he should be granted indefinite leave to remain because there are exceptional facts,” Ms Burgess said. “And when you look at it on a personal level, if Nelson was your friend or your neighbour, you would absolutely agree that he should be given the immediate right to settle.” A Home Office spokesman said: “It would be inappropriate to comment on active legal proceedings.” BBC

UK Home Office tells Ghanaian man he is not British after 42 years in UK Read More »

‘Indefensible’: UK prisoner jailed for 23 months killed himself after being held for 17 years

Leave a Comment / Foreign News, News / Superlaw Admin

Coroner condemns ‘inhumane’ imprisonment for public protection sentences that have no end date for release A senior coroner has condemned the “inhumane” and “indefensible” treatment of a man who killed himself 17 years into an indefinite prison sentence. Tom Osborne, the senior coroner for Milton Keynes, said Scott Rider had given up all hope of release before he took his own life at HMP Woodhill in June 2022. He had been serving an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence after being convicted of grievous bodily harm in 2005. The sentence had a minimum term of 23 months but no end date. Days before he died, Rider told a prison worker that he had lost hope he would ever be freed. He said it was “disgusting” that he was still locked up, that his crime had not warranted a never-ending punishment, and that the IPP sentence had ruined his life. “He did things wrong and he deserved to be punished but he didn’t deserve that,” his sister, Michelle Mahon, said. Osborne, who led the investigation into Rider’s death, has now written to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) calling for a review of all prisoners serving IPP sentences. The controversial punishment was introduced in 2005 and scrapped in 2012 after widespread criticism. But it was not abolished retrospectively and almost 3,000 people given IPPs remain in prison today. The sentences do not have an end date, with prisoners remaining in custody until they can prove they don’t pose a risk. Many of those on IPPs were convicted for low-level crimes such as theft, including one person who has spent 12 years in prison after stealing a mobile phone. Even if IPP prisoners are released, they remain on licence with the threat of the sentence being reactivated at any time. In a prevention of future deaths report sent to the prisons minister, Edward Argar, Osborne warned that without urgent action more people could die. He said he had been told by the governor of Woodhill that she believed IPPs were “indefensible” and that she and her fellow governors would welcome an intervention. “One has to conclude that his treatment was inhumane and indefensible and that if action is not taken to review all prisoners sentenced to IPP then there is a risk of further deaths occurring,” he wrote of Rider’s case. Rider’s sister said that the sentence robbed her brother “of the chance to have a family and the chance to turn his life around”. She said that growing up, her brother had been the “golden child” but that in his teens he began using drugs and racked up convictions for crimes, including theft and burglary. In 2003, Rider was jailed for assaulting their father. He was later released and, Mahon says, went on to clean his life up and find a girlfriend. But in 2005, while still on licence for the earlier offence, he was arrested again after assaulting a colleague and given an IPP sentence with a minimum tariff of 23 months. Mahon, a nurse from Durham from whom he was estranged, only found out he was serving an IPP sentence after he died. She said she had never heard of them before and was stunned that it meant the length of his punishment lay in the hands of a parole board rather than a judge. She is now campaigning for the cases of all IPP prisoners to be reviewed. “I do not condone what Scott has done. In 17 years, he committed 47 offences and was convicted of 22. But I think these sentences are inhumane and they need to be abolished. To get a 23-month sentence and serve 17 years… how can they justify it?” Mahon said. She said she felt her brother had been punished for disengaging with the system. Over his 17-and-a-half years behind bars, Rider transferred between prisons repeatedly; was abusive to staff; and had appeared depressed. In 2018, he was convicted of racially aggravated harassment of a prison officer. In May 2022 he told a prison worker that he felt Woodhill prison was “despicable” and that he was “going insane”. He refused to engage with the parole process. By the time of his death in June 2022, he had been self-isolating in his cell for 200 days and had stopped showering. The inquest into Rider’s death heard it was common for IPP prisoners to display “challenging behaviours” and that they often felt “trapped”. Mahon said: “How can they justify rejecting parole just because on the day he’s supposed to meet the parole board he’s woken up in a bad mood and told them to eff off? That to me cries mental health… so why should he be kept in prison for that?” Official figures published last week show 2,796 people given IPPs remain in prison today. Of those, 1,179 have never been released and 705 are more than 10 years beyond their original sentence. Campaigners have described IPPs as a “death sentence by the back door”. The rate of self-harm among IPP prisoners is more than twice that of the general prison population and there have been 90 self-inflicted deaths of prisoners on IPPs in custody since they were introduced in April 2005, according to the United Group for Reform of IPP. The figures do not include suicides in the community. One person still serving an IPP sentence, Wayne Gregory from Swansea, said the punishment had affected “every aspect of my life, physical and mental health and progression out of prison”. Gregory was jailed in 2007 after admitting wounding and common assault and should have been in prison for under three years, but remains there today. Campaigners supporting him say he is “trapped in a cycle” of severe anxiety and self-harm. In one incident, Wayne wrote that “IPP killed me” on his cell wall in his own blood. In a letter detailing his situation, he said he wanted to be a voice for IPP prisoners and was optimistic things would change. “I won’t be

‘Indefensible’: UK prisoner jailed for 23 months killed himself after being held for 17 years Read More »

Council of Europe human rights watchdog condemns UK’s Rwanda bill

Leave a Comment / Foreign News, News / Superlaw Admin

Council of Europe human rights watchdog condemns UK’s Rwanda bill Rights commissioner expresses grave concern after Rishi Sunak’s asylum policy passes parliamentary stages The Council of Europe’s human rights watchdog has condemned Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme, saying it raises “major issues about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law.” The body’s human rights commissioner, Michael O’Flaherty, said the bill, expected to be signed into law on Tuesday after passing its parliamentary stages late on Monday night, was a grave concern and should not be used to remove asylum seekers or infringe on judges’ independence. “I am concerned that the Rwanda bill enables the implementation of a policy of removing people to Rwanda without any prior assessment of their asylum claims by the UK authorities in the majority of cases,” O’Flaherty said in a statement on Tuesday saying it “significantly excludes the ability of UK courts to fully and independently scrutinise the issues brought before them”. The UK remains a member of the pan-European body that promotes human rights, democracy and the rule of law across the continent. O’Flaherty warned that the UK was prohibited from subjecting, even indirectly, people to “refoulement” – the act of forcing a refugee or asylum seeker to a country or territory where he or she is likely to face persecution – including under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, under the refugee convention, and under “a range of other international instruments”. Sunak has said flights will begin taking asylum seekers to Kigali within 10 to 12 weeks, admitting he would miss his target of flights taking off by spring. Speaking on Tuesday after the passing of the bill, the prime minister pledged it would be a “fundamental change in the global equation on migration”. But a Home Office minister said the government was prepared for “inevitable” legal challenges to the Rwanda scheme, saying there were those who were “determined to do whatever it takes to try and stop this policy from working”. Charities and rights groups have condemned the passing of the bill as a “stain on this country’s moral reputation”. The illegal migration minister, Michael Tomlinson, told Times Radio that the government knew there would be legal battles ahead. “I’m afraid that there will be challenges. There are people who don’t like this policy.” He said there were “patronising and supercilious” about the treatment of gay people in Rwanda, calling it “a very progressive country”. “Frankly, some of the debate that we’ve heard in the House of Commons and the House of Lords – not recently, but in the early days – was very patronising and almost supercilious in looking down at Rwanda,” he said. “So yes, people can be safely sent to Rwanda and it is not unlawful to be gay in Rwanda and discrimination on any grounds is unlawful in Rwanda.” The bill was passed late on Monday after a showdown with peers who eventually conceded on two amendments, but the government is expected to face a number of legal battles as it prepares to deport asylum seekers by July. The prime minister said the bill was “not just a step forward but a fundamental change in the global equation on migration”. “We introduced the Rwanda Bill to deter vulnerable migrants from making perilous crossings and break the business model of the criminal gangs who exploit them,” he said. “The passing of this legislation will allow us to do that and make it very clear that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to stay. Our focus is to now get flights off the ground, and I am clear that nothing will stand in our way of doing that and saving lives.” The deal will cost £1.8m for each of the first 300 deportees, the National Audit Office has confirmed. Earlier on Monday Sunak had admitted during a press conference that the first flights taking asylum seekers to Kigali would not take off for up to 12 weeks, despite having promised they would do so in the spring. Lawyers have told the Guardian they will prepare legal challenges on behalf of individual asylum seekers. They can challenge their removal on a case-by-case basis. The Home Office has a list of 350 asylum seekers who are deemed to pose the least risk of submitting successful legal challenges. The bill allows challenges if a detainee faces a “real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious irreversible harm if removed to Rwanda”. They must lodge an appeal within eight days of receiving a deportation letter. Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said the bill “takes a hatchet to international legal protections for some of the most vulnerable people in the world and it is a matter of national disgrace that our political establishment has let this bill pass”. “The bill is built on a deeply authoritarian notion attacking one of the most basic roles played by the courts – the ability to look at evidence, decide on the facts of a case and apply the law accordingly. It’s absurd that the courts are forced to treat Rwanda as a ‘safe country’ and forbidden from considering all evidence to the contrary.”

Council of Europe human rights watchdog condemns UK’s Rwanda bill Read More »

Creating sexually explicit deepfake images to be made offence in UK

Leave a Comment / Foreign News, News / Superlaw Admin

Offenders could face jail if image is widely shared under proposed amendment to criminal justice bill Creating a sexually explicit “deepfake” image is to be made an offence under a new law, the Ministry of Justice has announced. Under the legislation, anyone who creates such an image without consent will face a criminal record and an unlimited fine. They could also face jail if the image is shared more widely. The creation of a deepfake image will be an offence regardless of whether the creator intended to share it, the department said. The Online Safety Act, introduced last year, has already criminalised the sharing of deepfake intimate images, whose creation is being facilitated by advances in artificial intelligence. The offence will be introduced through an amendment to the criminal justice bill, which is making its way through parliament. Laura Farris, the minister for victims and safeguarding, said the creation of deepfake sexual images was “unacceptable irrespective of whether the image is shared”. “It is another example of ways in which certain people seek to degrade and dehumanise others – especially women. And it has the capacity to cause catastrophic consequences if the material is shared more widely. This government will not tolerate it. “This new offence sends a crystal clear message that making this material is immoral, often misogynistic, and a crime.” Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, supported the announcement, saying: “It’s welcome that the government has accepted Labour’s calls to criminalise the creation of deepfake pornography. Superimposing somebody’s image on to sexually explicit photos and videos is a gross violation of their autonomy and privacy, which can cause enormous harm, and it must not be tolerated. “It’s essential that the police and prosecutors are equipped with the training and tools required to rigorously enforce these laws in order to stop perpetrators from acting with impunity.” Deborah Joseph, the editor-in-chief of Glamour UK, welcomed the planned amendment. “In a recent Glamour survey, we found 91% of our readers believe deepfake technology poses a threat to the safety of women, and from hearing personal stories from victims, we also know how serious the impact can be,” she said. “While this is an important first step, there is still a long way to go before women will truly feel safe from this horrendous activity.”

Creating sexually explicit deepfake images to be made offence in UK Read More »

Court to rule on Shamima Begum appeal against citizenship removal

Leave a Comment / Foreign News, News / Yaw Nkansah Abankroh

Judges to decide whether revoking citizenship of teenager who joined Islamic State was unlawful Shamima Begum, who left the UK as a 15-year-old schoolgirl to join Islamic State is to find out whether her appeal against the removal of her UK citizenship has been successful. Three court of appeal judges, including the chief justice, Sue Carr, will rule on Friday whether the home secretary’s revocation of her citizenship, on the basis that it was “conducive to the public good”, and the special immigration appeals commission’s (Siac) ruling to uphold his decision, were unlawful. At the appeal hearing in October, Begum’s lawyers argued that the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, had failed to consider whether she had been groomed and trafficked and so had breached anti-slavery protections in British law. The Siac ruled in February last year that there was credible suspicion that Begum “was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation” but that the home secretary had broad discretion in making the decision. Begum left her home in east London in 2015 with two school friends to travel to Syria, where she married the Dutch national Yago Riedijk, 27. Shortly after she was found in a refugee camp in 2019, Begum was stripped of her citizenship and banned from entering Britain. In written submissions for October’s hearing, her lawyer, Samantha Knights KC, said: “The appellant’s trafficking was a mandatory, relevant consideration in determining whether it was conducive to the public good and proportionate to deprive her of citizenship, but it was not considered by the Home Office. As a consequence, the deprivation decision was unlawful.” Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said Javid “was well aware of the possibility that she [Begum] may have been ‘manipulated or radicalised’ prior to her travel. The only question which therefore remained was what weight to attribute to these factors. That was a matter for the secretary of state.” The court of appeal case is the latest in Begum’s long-running legal battle against the UK authorities, which has attracted widespread attention and cast a spotlight on their approach towards citizens in refugee camps in north-east Syria. The UK has allowed just two adults to return since the end of the ground war against Islamic State more than four years ago, lagging behind allies such as Australia, Canada, France and Germany. The US, some security experts and senior Conservatives, have been among critics of the UK’s approach. Begum is the most high-profile of those held in camps run by the Kurdish administration. She has been vilified by the rightwing press, while the former director of public prosecutions of England and Wales, Ken Macdonald, among others, accused Javid of revoking her citizenship to bolster his ambitions to be prime minister. In the past, Begum has described conditions at al-Roj, where she is being held, as “worse than prison” because there is no limit to the length of her detention. Three of her children have died while in Syria, the last shortly after Javid informed her family that her British citizenship was being revoked. Even if Begum’s appeal is successful, it does not mean she can return to the UK. Notwithstanding a likely government appeal for the case to be considered by the supreme court, several British women detained in north-east Syria retain British citizenship but have not been repatriated. If Begum loses, her legal team could attempt to appeal to the supreme court, meaning that, whatever the decision on Friday, it will not be the final chapter. Guardian

Court to rule on Shamima Begum appeal against citizenship removal Read More »