Appeal bid over British teacher's extradition to Turkey dropped
Turkish authorities had sought her return over allegations she assaulted a young child while teaching at an international school in Istanbul in early 2019.
Last month Judge Paul Goldspring gave the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) two weeks to consider whether to challenge the decision in the High Court.
But at a brief hearing on Tuesday, the CPS confirmed it would not pursue an appeal.
The court previously heard that Richardson left the UK in 2000 and spent nearly 20 years living abroad.
She lived in Turkey between 2013 and 2019, but before that had lived in Mexico and Hong Kong, the extradition hearing was told.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Rules on sunbathing naked in your garden in heatwave as police issue warning
If you're looking to get a back garden glow while avoiding tan lines, think twice before stripping off. Police have warned that you could be breaking the law As temperatures rise across the nation, many of us will be taking advantage of the sunny weather at beaches, parks, and other outdoor areas this weekend. And if you're fortunate enough to have a garden, what could be better than enjoying the balmy weather in your own private space, away from crowded public areas and scantily clad strangers? If you're planning on sunbathing in your garden, you might consider going au naturel to avoid unsightly tan lines. However, caution is advised as police warn that nudity in your own private garden could potentially breach the law. In England and Wales, public nudity is not inherently illegal, but there are stipulations. It becomes an offence under Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 if nudity is intended to cause "distress or alarm". The Crown Prosecution Service states: "In the case of naturism, a balance needs to be struck between the naturist's right to freedom of expression and the right of the wider public to be protected from harassment, alarm and distress." While you may be within your own property when in your garden, those residing in terraced houses will know that it's often quite easy to get a peek into your neighbour's garden, even without intending to pry. Although you may not be physically exposing yourself in public, there's a risk of causing "distress or alarm" to your neighbours when you're sans attire in your own garden - it's only deemed illegal if there was an intent behind the action. So, how do you go about safely sunbathing naked without stirring the pot with those who live next door? The police recommend giving the neighbours a heads up if you're planning to soak up the rays in the buff, and to try and find a spot that's hidden from prying eyes for your naked retreat. There was a case in Reigate where Surrey Police addressed this very topic after a dispute erupted among residents. They cautioned: "If you want to wander around your garden naked and you are overlooked by neighbours then you have to be careful - an Englishman's home is not quite his castle and your garden is not exempt from the law." "In an ideal world, your relationship with your neighbours would be such that they would not object to you gardening in the buff and they would never dream of calling the police. In the real world, however, you would be well advised to take some simple precautions." But despite these warnings, the law stipulates that an offence only occurs if the individual in question intended to cause alarm or distress. British Naturism says there is "no obligation" to inform neighbours of one's disposition towards naturalist sunbathing. They said: "There is no law against being naked in public, and so stripping off and enjoying the sun on your skin in your own garden cannot lead to arrest nor can your neighbours make you cover up. "Being neighbourly might mean you tell your neighbours that you plan to sunbathe naked but there is no obligation to do so, so don't hesitate. "Studies have shown that spending time naked is good for you, and so we encourage everyone to take advantage of the wonderful weather and celebrate their uniqueness."
The Sun
9 hours ago
- The Sun
Prince Harry's lawyers must produce documents on alleged payments to witnesses in latest legal claim
PRINCE Harry's lawyers must produce documents on alleged payments to witnesses in his latest legal claim, a judge says. Harry and six others — including actress Liz Hurley, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish — are suing Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers Limited. In May, ANL's lawyers asked the High Court to let them see documents 'that relate to payments, royalties or inducements'. Yesterday Mr Justice Nicklin ruled paperwork must be handed over. He said: "I am satisfied that documents held by the claimants that can support a case that a witness has been paid or offered other inducement for their evidence, whether directly or indirectly, should be disclosed. "That is because there is a real prospect that Associated will be able to rely upon this evidence to attack the credibility of such witnesses. "Ultimately, the issue of whether the payment or inducement does affect the credibility of any witness is a matter to be resolved at trial." ANL denies its accusers' claims that it hired private investigators to tap phones and even carry out burglaries. It previously described the claims as "lurid" and "simply preposterous". A trial is expected to start in January and last for nine weeks. 1
Telegraph
14 hours ago
- Telegraph
Prince Harry ordered to reveal any payments to witnesses in case against Daily Mail
The Duke of Sussex has been ordered to reveal to the High Court any 'payments or inducements' made in return for evidence in his claim against the Daily Mail. Associated Newspapers, the publisher that owns the Daily Mail, is accused of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, 'blagging' private records, burglaries to order and accessing and recording private phone conversations. The publisher denies the allegations made by a group of high-profile public figures, including the Duke, Baroness Lawrence, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes. Instead, they claim that incentives were 'offered or paid' by researchers working for the claimants' legal team, including a £5,000-a-month deal with a private investigator called Gavin Burrows. In a ruling handed down on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin criticised the 'inconsistent and incoherent approach' made by the claimants to providing such evidence, declaring their explanations 'unconvincing'. He said there were 'serious questions to be answered' about the status of the claimants' research team, particularly the documents they held and whether there had been adequate disclosure. The judge ruled that the group should search for and hand over any documents that suggest that Mr Burrows, or any other potential witness, 'has skin in the game'. The trial is due to take place in January 2026. The judge's latest ruling follows a two-day case management hearing in May, during which Antony White KC, for Associated Newspapers, asked the court to order the claimants to 'search for and disclose any documents that relate to payments, royalties or inducements paid, provided or offered, or any demands or threats made, in order to obtain documents, information or other co-operation'. The barrister said a limited number of documents had been disclosed, which showed that 'payments were made or offered' to 'procure evidence and invoices'. Mr Justice Nicklin said he was satisfied that any documents suggesting witnesses had been paid or offered other inducements should be disclosed. 'That is because there is a real prospect that Associated will be able to rely upon this evidence to attack the credibility of such witnesses,' he added. 'Ultimately, the issue of whether the payment or inducement does affect the credibility of any witness is a matter to be resolved at trial. In this case, the stance adopted by the claimants has been undermined by their inconsistent and incoherent approach to disclosure of documents relating to payments to potential witnesses and/or other inducements.' The claimants were also ordered to conduct further searches for evidence relating to what has been described in court as their 'personal watershed moment' – when they became aware that they had a potential claim. The Duke of Sussex is said to have sent a text message to Baroness Lawrence alerting her that 'information' had come to light 'that she would want to know about', prompting her to join the legal action just a few months later. In a subsequent email sent by the Duke to Baroness Lawrence about the material his barrister, David Sherborne, had 'come across', he said 'he and one of his team would be keen to come and speak to you… in order to explain what this material shows and what your options are'. The Duke was told he had a potential claim by Mr Sherborne, to whom he was introduced by Sir Elton while on holiday at the singer's home in France. Associated Newspapers had sought information about such 'moments', including details of who had allegedly provided what information to whom and on what dates. 'Surprising' lack of documentation Mr Justice Nicklin said he found the lack of documentation on these pivotal moments 'surprising'. Such revelations would surely have prompted 'communications between trusted friends and family members; messages seeking advice or guidance, or expressing shock or outrage,' he said. The judge noted that a 'complete absence of corroborating documents' may be used to suggest these moments were not 'quite as shocking' as claimed. Meanwhile, the claimants' attempt to access broader call data and other information was refused by the judge, who described the requests as 'disproportionate or unfocused'. Broad allegations made about the alleged use of unlawful information gathering across all Mail titles over 25 years were also rejected. Mr Justice Nicklin warned that such allegations could not prove individual claims and that the court would 'tightly manage' the scope of the generic case to prevent the litigation from becoming 'a wide-ranging public inquiry'.
