‘Mystery liquid' found in English coastal town prompts evacuation of 160 homes
Police were called to an address in Hyde Road at 5.27pm on Monday evening after receiving reports of an unidentified liquid.
The Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team attended to assess the item, with residents in nearby properties advised to stay indoors while access to the area was restricted.
It was then decided that a planned evacuation of those living in the vicinity would take place on Tuesday 24 June, with residents from six different streets asked to leave their homes by 9am.
Sussex Police officers remain at the scene while the roads are closed, with no immediate risk to the public.
Detective Superintendent Jon Robeson said: 'Our priority is to keep people safe. We are satisfied that there is no immediate risk to residents and an evacuation of nearby homes can be completed safely and effectively during daylight hours to minimise impact on the local residents.
'We will have a number of uniformed officers present on Tuesday morning to assist with the planned evacuation and offer further advice.
'We would encourage residents of Hyde Road, Camden Road, Calverley Road, West Terrace, Bath Road and Grove Road to leave their addresses by 9am.
'We appreciate the support of residents and the wider community who will be affected by the necessary precautionary actions we need to take, and hopefully they will be able to swiftly return to their homes.
'I would like to thank them for their patience and understanding while we bring this incident to a safe conclusion.
'The item is secure and the road closed, and a number of police will be present to provide reassurance as we work with emergency services and other partner agencies to minimise disruption.
'Public safety is our priority, and the cordon will take in around 160 homes. We will allow residents to return to their homes as soon as it is safe for them to do so.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
High Court orders investigation into MI5 over false evidence
MI5 could still face contempt of court proceedings over incorrect evidence provided in a bid for an injunction against the BBC, judges at the High Court have said. In a decision on Wednesday, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said that a further investigation should be carried out and that it would be 'premature to reach any conclusions on whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any individual'. In 2022, Suella Braverman, the then-attorney general, went to the High Court to stop the BBC airing a programme that would name a man who had allegedly abused two women and was a covert human intelligence source. An injunction was made in April 2022 to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme without identifying him. But at a hearing earlier this year, the London court was told that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. Lawyers for the BBC told the court the 'low threshold' for launching contempt proceedings against MI5 and a number of individuals for not being fully transparent with the court had been met. On Wednesday, Baroness Carr said that a new investigation should be carried out on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The written witness evidence, now accepted to have been false, said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying the identities of intelligence sources. However, MI5 disclosed X's status to a BBC reporter, but then claimed it had maintained its policy of neither confirm nor deny. Lawyers on behalf of MI5 apologised earlier this year and carried out two investigations, which concluded the false evidence was given due to a series of mistakes, with no deliberate attempt by any staff member to mislead. 'Serious procedural deficiencies' In Wednesday's 26-page ruling, the three judges said they were not 'satisfied' with the investigations or their conclusions. Baroness Carr, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, also said: 'The investigations carried out by MI5 to date suffer from serious procedural deficiencies. 'Their conclusions cannot presently be relied on.' They added: 'It is regrettable that MI5's explanations to this court were given in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory way – and only following the repeated intervention of the court.' In the programme about X, the BBC alleged the intelligence source was a misogynistic neo-Nazi who attacked his girlfriend, referred to by the pseudonym Beth, with a machete. Beth is bringing related legal action in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, with the judges finding on Wednesday that the specialist tribunal – which investigates allegations against the UK intelligence services – was also misled. Baroness Carr later said: 'Whilst we accept the genuineness of the apologies proffered on behalf of MI5, the fact remains that this case has raised serious issues. 'MI5 gave false evidence to three courts. This was compounded by inadequate attempts to explain the circumstances.' Full and unreserved apology Following the ruling, Sir Ken McCallum, the MI5 director-general said: 'I wish to repeat my full and unreserved apology for the errors made in these proceedings. 'We take our duty to provide truthful, accurate and complete information with the utmost seriousness. 'Resolving this matter to the court's satisfaction is of the highest priority for MI5 and we are committed to co-operating fully with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office and the court. 'MI5 is now embarked on a programme of work to learn all lessons and implement changes to ensure this does not happen again. This programme will build in external challenge and expertise – with independent assurance to the Home Secretary on our progress. 'MI5's job is to keep the country safe. Maintaining the trust of the courts is essential to that mission.' A BBC spokesman said: 'We are pleased this decision has been reached and that the key role of our journalist Daniel De Simone in bringing this to light has been acknowledged by the judges. 'We believe our journalism on this story has always been in the highest public interest.'
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
Who is Lucy Letby and why is her case back in the news?
It is now approaching two years since Lucy Letby was told she would die in prison after being given 15 whole-life sentences. The 35-year-old murdered of seven babies and the attempted murder seven others, making two attempts on the life of one of them, making her the most prolific child serial killer in British legal history. Since her conviction, a highly-vocal campaign has protested her innocence, but investigations continue into whether she may have committed other crimes against children before she was caught. Earlier the police confirmed a "full file of evidence" has been passed to prosecutors who will consider fresh charges relating to the non-fatal collapse and deaths of babies in Chester and Liverpool. Who is Lucy Letby? Her trial at Manchester Crown Court revealed Letby to have lived an unremarkable life before her arrest in July 2018, with detectives who worked on the case describing her as "the human form of beige". Born in Hereford in January 1990, she attended a local school and sixth form and, she told jurors, "always wanted to work with children". She was the first person in her family to go to university and studied nursing for three years at the University of Chester. During her studies and training she had placements at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women's Hospital. Letby qualified as a band five nurse in 2011, and was considered competent and capable by the majority of her colleagues. But the public inquiry set up to examine how she was able to murder children under the noses of her colleagues heard she initially failed her final year student placement because her assessor felt she was "cold" and "lacked empathy" with patients and their families. Letby appealed that decision, however, and passed with a new assessor. At the time of her arrest she was living in a modest semi-detached property in Westbourne Road, Chester, with two cats, Tigger and Smudge, and appeared to have an active social life. What did Lucy Letby do? Over the course of a nine month criminal trial, a jury heard that Letby was present at a series of "unexplained" deaths and sudden collapses of vulnerable babies on the neonatal unit where she worked. The indictment - the list of charges she faced - focused on the period between June 2015 and June 2016, when Letby was removed from frontline duties. Prosecutors said she attacked babies by injecting air into their bodies, by force feeding them, by poisoning them with insulin, and in some cases causing traumatic injuries by inflicting physical blows. Why Letby case is under more scrutiny than ever One piece of evidence presented in court was a staffing rota which showed only Letby was present at every single incident considered suspicious by the prosecution. On 8 August 2023, the jury returned the first set of verdicts, before returning the second set on 11 August. Letby was convicted of seven murders and six attempted murders, with not guilty verdicts on two counts of attempted murder and the jury deadlocked on another six counts. After a retrial in July 2024, she was convicted of a further count of attempted murder. What happened next? Letby almost immediately applied for leave to appeal her original convictions, which was refused on 4 July 2024 by the Court of Appeal. However one significant detail did emerge in that process. An academic paper by Dr Shoo Lee, a retired Canadian neonatologist, had been used by the prosecution at trial to highlight signs of vascular air embolism - the introduction of air bubbles into their veins - in newborns. Dr Lee, who was unaware of his work being involved in the case during the trial, had since been contacted by Letby's legal team and stated his belief that his paper had been misinterpreted by prosecution experts. Letby was also separately refused leave to appeal against her conviction from the re-trial. In September 2024, the Thirlwall Inquiry into the circumstances of Letby's offending began in Liverpool, and heard evidence over seven months. The chairwoman of the inquiry, Lady Justice Thirlwall, had confirmed she would not hear evidence on whether Letby's convictions were safe, stating it was not the appropriate forum. It is due to publish its findings early next year. Innocence campaign In the weeks and months after Letby was convicted, a steady drumbeat of questions about the safety of her convictions grew louder. While some of that discourse veered into online conspiracy chatter, serious academics including medical experts and statisticians also questioned the case. Conservative peer Sir David Davis announced he believed a miscarriage of justice had taken place and has since supported the campaign. Last month, his Conservative Party colleague and former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the case should be "urgently re-examined". In February this year Letby's post-trial barrister, Mark McDonald, called a press conference featuring a panel of 14 international experts in neonatology and paediatric care and chaired by Dr Lee. Dr Lee said the panel had independently reviewed the evidence heard at trial and concluded no murders or attempted murders had taken place. Dr Lee said the panel believed the babies in question had died due to natural causes or poor medical care. The report, along with other evidence, has been submitted in an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the statuatory body set up to examine potential miscarriages of justice. The CCRC is reviewing the application and said it could take some time to reach a decision as to whether to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal for a full families of Letby's victims, through lawyers, have described the panel's report as a "rehash" and "full of analytical holes". Criminal investigation continues While Letby's legal team have been working to secure a new appeal, detectives on Cheshire Police's Operation Hummingbird, which was set up to investigate the events at the Countess of Chester, have been continuing their enquiries. Shortly after Letby was convicted in 2023, the force announced it was still investigating non-fatal collapses and deaths of babies that were not included on the indictment - both in the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women's Hospital. In October that year, it also launched an unrelated but parallel investigation called Operation Duet, looking at potential offences of corporate or gross negligence manslaughter relating to the response of hospital leaders to rising death rates. This week there were significant updates in both investigations. On Tuesday the force announced three former senior managers at the Countess of Chester had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and had been bailed pending further enquiries. On Wednesday, news broke that a "full file of evidence" had been handed by the Operation Hummingbird team to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a decision on whether to bring fresh charges against response, her barrister Mr McDonald said the evidence of her innocence was "overwhelming". "We will cross every bridge when we get to it but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution's unfounded allegations," he added. Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on BBC Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram, and watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer.
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Council failings led to incident which saw boy, 12, kill foster carer with car
Failings by a local council contributed to circumstances around the death of a grandmother who was killed when a 12-year-old boy she was fostering ran her over with her own car, a coroner has found. Marcia Grant, 60, had been working as a foster carer for seven years when she suffered catastrophic injuries as she tried to stop the boy taking her car outside her home in the Greenhill area of Sheffield on April 5 2023. The boy, referred to as Child X, was sentenced to two years in custody in November 2023 after admitting causing Mrs Grant's death by dangerous driving, when a murder charge was dropped. On Tuesday, South Yorkshire coroner Marilyn Whittle recorded a narrative conclusion after an inquest into Mrs Grant's death, saying the circumstances which led to the fatal incident 'were contributed to by the failings of the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to have appropriate systems and processes in place when placing foster children, including but not limited to the lack of accurate and complete documentation, failure to communicate risks and concerns appropriately, failure to conduct appropriate risk assessments and failing to safeguard those in their care'. Ms Whittle said she would be writing a 'prevention of future deaths' report addressing issues including the council's lack of documentation and failure to complete forms; and a shortage of placements, although she said this was a 'national issue' and not just to be directed at Rotherham. The inquest heard Mrs Grant and her husband Delroy were experienced foster carers who were highly regarded by the council's fostering team. They were caring for another child, referred to as Child Y, when a call went out to all Rotherham's foster carers for an emergency placement for Child X on March 30 2023. The inquest heard how Mr and Mrs Grant volunteered to take him, despite them being categorised as only able to take in one child at a time, largely because of the complexities Child Y presented to them. Ms Whittle said that Child X had a youth caution for possessing a knife and had at times talked about wanting to be part of gang culture, but this information was not included on the initial placement referral form, making it 'deficient'. She said Mrs Grant's decision that she could provide Child X with a short term placement 'was made without her full knowledge of Child X's risks' because of 'the failings of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to have in place systems and processes to ensure full details are included and up to date forms were used'. The coroner said the Grants' social worker who was asked for his opinion on whether they were a suitable match for Child X, was not told about the boy claiming to have stabbed people or been involved in gangs, and 'would have categorically said that was not a match' if he had been. Ms Whittle found that 'had the proper process been undertaken, Child X would not have been placed with the Grant family'. The inquest heard on April 4, Mrs Grant received a visit from the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) who discussed the placement with her. The IRO said after the meeting they would not recommend the placement was extended as concerns were raised that Mrs Grant was keeping knives locked in another room, and the boy had told her he had stabbed someone, spat at the neighbour and had sex with 10 girls. Child X was removed from Mrs Grant's care on April 5, but she was asked to keep him on for a longer placement because social services were not able to find an alternative placement. Shortly after he was returned to the Grants' home, he attempted to steal their car. Mrs Whittle said Mrs Grant was killed as she stood behind the vehicle in an attempt to stop him driving it away. After the inquest, Mrs Grant's son Shaun Grant said his mother 'deserved better' and would not have taken Child X if she had known his full history. Reading a statement alongside his sister Gemma Grant, he said: 'We have been on an agonising journey to uncover the truth behind the events and systemic failings that led to the death of our beloved mum, Marcia Grant. 'What has become evident over the last few weeks leaves us with no doubt that our mum was failed, our family was failed, and so too the foster child that was in our long-term care. 'It remains a source of deep sorrow and frustration that senior leadership within the council has consistently refused to acknowledge their own accountability despite being fully aware of the risk history of Child X and our mum's own needs as a foster carer. 'They chose to look away, take no responsibility and to make no meaningful change for carers after our mum's death.' He went on to say: 'We wholly welcome the coroner's findings that our mum was failed on numerous fronts and that these failures directly contributed to her death. 'However, whilst this leaves us with a sense of vindication, it also serves to reinforce to us how badly she was failed. 'If not for these failures, our mum would still be with us here today. 'Our mum was dedicated to protecting vulnerable people, she did so with strength, compassion, and an unwavering sense of duty. 'Yet when it mattered the most, the same system she gave so much for, did not protect her in return.'
