The Sun - Last updated at 22:00pm on 22nd December 2006
WPC Sharon Beshenivsky was shot dead
Two of the armed robbers who killed policewoman Sharon Beshenivsky were on police bail at the time, it has emerged.
Muzzaker Imtiaz Shah and Faisal Razzaq, both 25, had been arrested by another force on suspicion of firearms offences.
After being questioned, they were freed on bail - never to be heard from again until the day PC Beshenivsky was gunned down on her daughter's 4th birthday.
The blunder was revealed yesterday as the killers were jailed. Further details cannot be reported for legal reasons. Shah and Somalian refugee Yusuf Jama, 20, were each given four life sentences and must serve a minimum of 35 years. They were told they may never be released.
PC Beshenivsky, 38, was shot dead and her colleague Teresa Milburn gravely injured as the raiders fled Universal Express travel agency in Bradford with £5,000 in November last year.
She left behind sons Samuel, 13, and Paul, eight, and daughter Lydia, now five.
Last night her husband Paul, 44, said: 'They are going to rot inside until they are 60 years old.
'That gives them plenty of time to think about what they have done. Every year, on November 18, I hope they think about my daughter trying to have a birthday on the anniversary of the day they killed her mother.'
Shah, who lives in the London area, had admitted murder, robbery and firearms offences. This week Jama was convicted of the same charges.
Lookout Razzaq was given two life sentences for manslaughter and robbery and must serve a minimum of 11 years while his 26-year-old brother Hassan was convicted of manslaughter.
He has not been sentenced yet. When the gang was led out after hearing their fates at Newcastle Crown Court yesterday,
Shah gave a defiant gangland style 'salute' to friends in the public gallery, while Faisal Razzaq thumped his chest and Jama shrugged.
In a bid to secure a lighter jail term, Shah's QC Diana Ellis told the court of his great remorse and desire to visit PC Beshenivsky's grave to say 'sorry'.
PC Milburn, who is back at work, sobbed quietly as her 'impact statement' was read out by prosecutor Robert Smith, QC.
He told the court she had said: 'They could have just threatened us with the guns. That would have been enough.'
Sentencing, Mr Justice Andrew Smith said: 'Sharon Beshenivsky and Teresa Milburn were not only doing their duty but went beyond their duty. Both paid for their dedication, Sharon Beshenivsky with her life.'
Jama, of Small Heath, Birmingham, was given permission in 2000 to stay in Britain until 2007.
He repaid this act of humanity by notching up eight criminal convictions for cannabis posses-assault on a policeman - twice - and various counts of burglary and theft.
The Razzaqs, both of Forest Gate, East London, have robbed numerous shops.
Faisal has convictions for dishonesty, deception and robbery, and yesterday he was given two life sentences. Hassan will learn his fate next month.
A fifth man, Raza Ul-Haq Aslam, 25, will be retried after a jury cleared him of murder, manslaughter and firearms offences but failed to reach a verdict on robbery.
The 'architect' of the heist, Piran Ditta Khan, remains a fugitive, as does Jama's brother Mustaf, 26.
He is on the run in Somalia - reportedly slipping out through Heathrow Airport disguised as a Muslim woman in a veil.
Speaking afterwards, PC Milburn said of the attack: 'I can remember every second like yesterday and it is something that will never leave me. It is something I have to learn to live with.
'Sharon was lovely. She was a genuine, caring, compassionate person. She brought these qualities with her every single day. She was a professional, enthusiastic police officer and she made us laugh.'
In 2000 it was claimed his life would be at risk if deported back to Somalia - so where has Ditta Khan escaped to? It is reputed that he is in hiding in his tribal area in Somalia.
|
|
|
http://www.eveningn ews24.co. uk/content/ news/story. aspx?brand= ENOnline&
category= News&tBrand= ENOnline& tCategory= news&itemid= NOED01%20Feb%
202007%2012% 3A52%3A04% 3A860
Evening News 24
'Not in the public interest'
DAVID POWLES
01 February 2007 12:51
Twelve potentially dangerous criminals are at large in Norfolk - but police were
today refusing to say who they are.
A bid to publish the names and photographs of a dozen suspected serious
offenders wanted after failing to answer bail has been blocked by Norfolk police
- who said releasing the details would not be in the public interest.
Four of the accused are wanted for alleged sex offences, and others were wanted
for crimes including drugs possession, burglary, theft and affray.
However Dawn Clarke, data protection and freedom of information manager at
Norfolk Constabulary, said to release the information would be a breach of Human
Rights and Data Protection acts.
She said: “There are circumstances in which the police will release the personal
data of alleged offenders. Such disclosure is considered on a case by case basis
and is based on identifying and appropriate policing purpose.”
Miss Clarke also said it would infringe parts of the Human Rights Act which
provide for the right to a fair trial and the right to private and family life.
The force said information would only be released on this basis it was “in the
significant public interest to do so, for example when the individual presents a
risk to public safety or the alleged offence is very serious”.
But law specialists and the government's Department for Constitutional Affairs
(DCA) said that the acts explicitly allow police to print “wanted” pictures if
it was in the public interest and would lead to the prevention of crime.
The DCA said: “Nothing in the Human Rights Act prevents publishing the
photograph of an escaped criminal if he presents a danger to the public.
“On the contrary, the Act explicitly allows public authorities to limit an
individual's right to privacy in the interests of public safety or for the
prevention of crime.”
One of the suspects, a 48-year-old accused of sex offences, has evaded police
capture for 17 years - but still the force does not believe the public should
know who he is.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Evening News applied for details and
photos of the 12 suspected category A offenders - officially classed as the most
dangerous types of crimes - who are classed as on the run after failing to
appear in court.
But Norfolk police's refusal led to astonishment among MPs and victim support
groups today - who said that by showing scant regard for the law, the dozen have
lost their rights to anonymity.
Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and founder of the Victims of Crime
Trust, said: “The public should be given sufficient information to be able to
identify those who are evading the police.
“This just shows the contempt that criminals have that when they are being told
to answer to bail they are failing to do so. Sufficient information should be
given at the earliest opportunity to ensure these people are arrested, kept in
prison and put before the courts at the earliest opportunity.”
Norwich North MP Dr Ian Gibson said: “This is ludicrous. If people have
committed crimes of this type then the public needs to know who they are and the
police need to find them.
“It is political correctness gone mad. The police have got to remember what
their job really is and that is to protect the public from dangerous criminals.
“This sounds like there are dangerous individuals loose and that is
intolerable.”
Norman Lamb, North Norfolk MP, said: “If they have been charged with serious
offences and haven't turned up for court I don't see that they have any cause
for protection of their identity.
“There has to be a responsibility on the media to ensure that any potential
trial is not prejudiced and the rights of someone who has not been tried yet has
to be respected, but I don't see that they have any right to protection if they
have failed to turn up in court.”
It was revealed in November that 12 people accused of category A offences are
currently in hiding after skipping a court appearance in the county, which in
itself amounts to a crime.
The Evening News subsequently requested each one's name, age, last given
address, offence details and photographs.
Although police agreed to hand over details on their current age, type of
offence, year of warrant and area dealing with it, they would not give out any
further details.
However, Tony Jaffa, a lawyer with Media Law specialists Foot Anstey explained
the Data Protection Act allowed personal date to be released for “the prevention
and detection of crime” or the “apprehension or prosecution of offenders”.
Meanwhile, the Human Rights Act states the act should not be exercised if the
information is necessary for “public safety or the prevention of crime.”
He said: “What they should be citing is the Contempt of Court Act and assessing
whether this information would present a substantial risk of serious prejudice,
which in this case it certainly would not.”
A police statement said today: “The decision to release pictures of people to
the media who have not responded to court bail, and are therefore not convicted,
will be in exceptional circumstances and is strictly regulated within the
national policy.
“We must take into account issues concerning policing purpose, necessity and
proportionality, privacy, public interest, the right to a fair trial and above
all, peoples' safety which is of paramount importance.”
The row comes at a time when the treatment of criminals in the United Kingdom is
under close scrutiny.
In the last 12 months the Home Office, the Government department which deals
with offenders, has been rocked by a series of scandals, including the release
from prison of foreign prisoners who should have been deported and the absence
of records for Britons who have committed crimes abroad.
At the weekend it emerged that police forces in the UK were unaware of the
whereabouts of hundreds of registered sex offenders, though none were being
monitored by Norfolk police.
# Do you think the public has a right to know the identity of the alleged
offenders? Write to
letters@eveningnews 24.co.uk. You can also vote online at
www.eveningnews24. co.uk
