“But during the night on 19 March he took an overdose of pills and was admitted to hospital again.He also had an infection from the tag on his ankle and it had to be taken off, out of hours.Difficulties over the contact phone number for the Home Office had created all sorts of problems because of the obligations of those subject to control orders, said Mr Freedman.Another suspect, “B”, who was severely disabled, had been taken to hospital with psychiatric problems after collapsing at his flat during the first night of his release He was still in hospital. Anger that no one in a position to do so stepped in and ended what to all reasonable observers had become a farce long ago.”Anger at the fact that those who have persecuted me to this day – the British Transport Police and the CPS and those instructed by them – fail to accept they got this terribly wrong.”The failure to return a jury verdict in the case is expected to prompt renewed calls for similar cases to be tried without jurors. A foreign terror suspect who was placed under a control order after his release from three years’ detention has been admitted to hospital after taking a drug overdose.
Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, 33, a Palestinian born in a refugee camp in Jordan, was taken to a London hospital on Saturday and only discharged three days later, the High Court was told yesterday.Mr Rideh was freed from Broadmoor high-security hospital earlier this month. Last year, the Government passed legislation that permits judges to sit alone without juries in complex trials.. Anger at a prosecution which has destroyed my business and tortured my family. Anger at a prosecution that has caused significant damage to my health. The allegations also concerned corrupting public officials entrusted with safeguarding London Underground Limited’s interests.The six cleared yesterday had all denied corruption.
They were Stephen Rayment, 44, from Leatherhead, Surrey; Mark Woodward-Smith, 44, from Wimbledon, south-west London; Paul Fisher, 52, from Saffron Walden, Essex; Mark Skinner, 50, from Warlingham, Surrey; Graham Scard, 50, from Forest Hill, south-east London; and Anthony Wootton, 50, from Stone-in-Oxney, Kent.Mark Skinner said outside court: “Although I should now feel relief and happiness, I feel only anger. Later, another reportedly had worries about falling behind with pension contributions.Ten defence barristers and their instructing solicitors have clocked up £14m in legal aid, while the three prosecuting barristers are to be paid £1.8m out of public funds. Yet, at least one of the lawyers sat in court for nearly a year without uttering a single word and, in the past seven months, the jury heard evidence on only 13 days of the 140 available.The prosecution arose from allegations that the defendants conspired to defraud London Underground by gaining access to confidential insider information, which was used against London Underground Limited’s interests during the course of its dealings with tenderers and contractors on the Jubilee line extension project.The information was relevant to the award of contracts worth tens of millions of pounds and also two substantial claims for additional monies under contracts awarded in connection with the Jubilee line extension project. Further costs are expected to bring the total figure for the case to £60m. One had become pregnant and the other had been arrested for alleged benefit fraud. Fresh concern over the jury arose in the last week of July when one of them complained they were worried about falling behind in their career.
But, by March last year – still in the midst of the prosecution case – the jury was reduced to 10. An inquiry has begun into the collapse of a £60m fraud trial which led to the acquittal of six men accused of corruption in connection with the extension of London Underground’s Jubilee line.
Judge Ann Goddard finally called a halt to proceedings yesterday, two years after the Old Bailey trial began, in a case described as one of the costliest and most inefficient prosecutions in British legal history.Judge Goddard cleared the six defendants after the prosecution offered no evidence and said they would not pursue a retrial. Anthony Upward QC said the prosecution’s decision to ask for the jury to be discharged was taken with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions after a review of the case.The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, said the inquiry into the circumstances that led to that decision would be led by the independent Crown Prosecution Service watchdog, Stephen Wooler. He said the decision to drop the case would cause “great public disquiet as it causes me considerable disquiet”. In his written statement he added: “The public are entitled to an efficient and effective criminal justice system and cases such as the present one must never be allowed to happen again. She earnestly hopes that in the light of the judgment this can now all be set aside and that everyone can get on with their lives.”The children were refused leave to take the case to the House of Lords but are considering petitioning the Law Lords for a hearing.. But they tempered the decision by saying it had been reached with “regret” and that it would have been fairer for the estate to be split between Mrs Sherrington and the children as under the original ruling.Mr Goldkorn said his client was considering the judges’ call for her to show financial mercy to her stepchildren.He said: “She was disappointed that the children, supported by their mother, Gloria, chose to challenge their father’s will Sadly this caused unnecessary bitterness and hostility.
He died a few weeks later, aged 56, in a car crash on the M25 motorway. The children insisted that he would not have failed to provide for them in the event of his death. Mrs Sherrington said there was ample security available in the form of life insurance policies.The appeal judges said Mr Justice Lightman’s decision that Mr Sherrington did not know or approve the contents of the will was “simply contrary to all probability and beyond belief”. The widow claimed that she and her late husband had agreed to leave everything to each other and trust them to make provision for their respective children. The will was witnessed by an office cleaner, who spoke very little English, and it was signed by Mr Sherrington as he dashed to the airport for a holiday in France. During the course of the original trial, Mrs Sherrington’s character and marriage were severely criticised by the presiding judge who found the second marriage to her late husband, Richard, to be “sour” and accepted evidence that Richard referred to her as “Hitler” and a “witch”.At that trial, Mr Justice Lightman described Mrs Sherrington as “aggressive and intolerant” and said her husband, a solicitor, had told friends the marriage was “the biggest mistake of my life”.But, in a statement yesterday, the widow, 56, expressed relief at the Appeal Court ruling. A widow has won a legal battle with her late husband’s three children over the validity of his £7m will.
The Court Of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling which last year stripped Yvonne Sherrington, the children’s stepmother, of half the estate.
