Manslaughter charges after Dudley nursery death of boy
Fairytales Nursery Ltd was also charged with one count of corporate manslaughter and failing to comply with a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act.The defendants are due to appear at Dudley Magistrates' Court on 13 May.The CPS said Fairytales Nursery was no longer in operation.
Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
5 hours ago
- ITV News
Woman who stabbed father-of-six on Christmas Day jailed for life
Police bodycam shows the moment Carless was arrested by police A woman who stabbed her ex-boyfriend on Christmas Day in the heart last year has been jailed. The court had previously heard that Kirsty Carless, 33, was "fuelled by cocaine and alcohol" when she took a taxi from her home in Cannock, Staffordshire to her ex-partner's home in Norton Canes in the early hours of December 25 last year. Carless, 33, took a knife in a taxi to confront Louis Price, 31, after seeing his profile on a dating app, Stafford Crown Court heard. The attack was 'motivated by anger and jealousy and fuelled by cocaine and alcohol', the jury heard. She was convicted unanimously of murder and possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. Carless was also found guilty by majority of assault occasioning actual bodily harm over a previous incident, but cleared of intentional strangulation. She was cleared of intentional strangulation in relation to the same incident. The trial was told Carless, of Haling Way in Cannock, Staffordshire, had been at the pub drinking double vodka and cokes with a male friend on December 24. While there, she plunged a kitchen knife she had taken from her home into Price's chest. The taxi driver reported that around 30 seconds after Carless let herself into the property with a key, he heard a 'very loud and prolonged' scream from a man and that he 'sounded scared'. Less than two minutes after arriving at the scene, Carless was 'anxious and sweating' as she got back into the taxi and demanded the driver take her to her parents' home, where she admitted what she had done and 999 was called. At the time of the stabbing, Carless was known to police. She had been on police bail after allegedly strangling Louis Price the previous year. A charge which she had denied. On that occasion, Mr Price phoned 999 to say Carless had poured bleach over tracksuits worth £400 after she put them in the bin, had thrown a glass candle holder at him, pulled him down the stairs and choked him. He was seen crying on police body-worn video footage, telling the officer: 'It's f****** embarrassing… it can't keep happening, man. In a witness statement after the incident, he said the relationship, which started in 2021, had been 'on the whole, abusive', that she had stopped him doing things he liked, such as playing football and had physically abused him. Police confirmed that a referral was made to the IOPC following recent contact. In her evidence to the trial, Carless said she had no recollection of stabbing him, was 'not a violent person' and had only gone to Mr Price's address as she believed he had taken money from inside a card she had in her home. She said she picked up a knife with the intent to destroy the caravan he was staying in in his parents' back garden and had 'panicked' after Mr Price was stabbed and fled. Narmina Rafiq of the Crown Prosecution Service said: 'This was a truly awful case that shows just how severe and calculated domestic violence can be. "Kirsty Carless did not have a sudden outburst, instead this was a deliberate and premeditated killing, following a series of events that began with jealousy over Louis Price's use of dating apps and ended in murder. 'The Crown Prosecution Service built a compelling case using DNA evidence, CCTV footage, witness testimony, forensic tests and pathological evidence that not only proved Kirsty Carless intended to kill Mr Price but showed exactly how it happened, leaving the jury certain of her guilt. 'Her unbelievably cruel and heartless actions have robbed six children of their father and his parents of their beloved son. We hope today's outcome brings them some comfort. Our condolences remain with Mr Price's family.'
Daily Record
10 hours ago
- Daily Record
Motorists warned of £200 fine for using headlights in harmless way
You might think you are being courteous, but you could end up in trouble with one common action Motorists could face a hefty fine for warning other motorists of speed cameras. Most drivers think they're being courteous when they flash their headlights to alert others of speed cameras, give way at junctions, or to even signal "thanks" to fellow motorists. However, these friendly flashes are actually illegal under Highway Code Rule 110 and could result in fines of up to £200 and penalty points. Even more alarmingly, drivers who flash their lights to warn others of police presence face potentially devastating penalties of up to £1,000 for obstructing police duties. Highway Code Rule 110 states that drivers should "only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there." It explicitly warns: "Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users." This means virtually every common use of headlight flashing is technically breaking the law, including warning other drivers of speed cameras, giving way at junctions, signalling "thank you," or expressing frustration. The penalties depend on exactly why drivers flashed their lights, creating a confusing two-tier system most motorists are unaware of. Car finance expert and owner of Simple PCP Claims, Tom Riley, said: "Most drivers flash their lights with good intentions, thinking they're being helpful. But the law is crystal clear, you can only flash your headlights to alert others to your presence. Anything else could technically land you in hot water." The regulations stem from the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. While Highway Code breaches aren't directly criminal, police can issue penalties when misuse creates danger or impedes law enforcement. The Crown Prosecution Service specifically lists "giving a warning to other motorists of a police speed trap ahead" as an example of obstructing police duties, making it clear that authorities actively target this common practice. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. While prosecution for everyday "polite" flashing remains relatively rare, the legal framework exists to catch drivers who step outside legally acceptable bounds. Traffic officers are particularly vigilant about drivers warning others of speed cameras. The confusion arises because headlight flashing has become ingrained in British driving culture. Many drivers assume it's perfectly legal, having learned these habits during lessons or from experienced drivers. Tom Riley adds: "The £200 fine might not sound enormous, but add penalty points and you're looking at a serious hit to your driving record. For drivers who warn others about speed traps, that £1,000 maximum penalty could be financially devastating. The safest approach is simple, only flash when you genuinely need to alert someone to your presence." With road traffic enforcement becoming increasingly sophisticated, drivers using headlights as a communication tool are playing a dangerous game with potentially expensive consequences.
South Wales Guardian
a day ago
- South Wales Guardian
Man found guilty of assaulting two female police officers at Manchester Airport
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, floored Pc Lydia Ward with a punch to the face which broke her nose and also knocked Pc Ellie Cook to the ground. Both officers and their colleague, Pc Zachary Marsden, approached Amaaz, 20, at a car park ticket machine after a report that a male fitting his description had headbutted a customer at Starbucks cafe in T2 arrivals on July 23 last year. Amaaz allegedly resisted, and his brother, Muhammad Amaad, 26, is then said to have intervened as the prosecution said they inflicted a 'high level of violence' on the Greater Manchester Police officers. Both defendants, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, told the court they acted in lawful self-defence, or in defence of the other. On Wednesday a jury at Liverpool Crown Court found Amaaz guilty of the assault of Pc Ward causing actual bodily harm and the assault of emergency worker Pc Cook. Amaaz was also convicted of the Starbucks assault of a member of the public, Abdulkareem Ismaeil. Jurors – after 10 hours of deliberating – could not reach a verdict on allegations the two brothers assaulted Pc Marsden causing actual bodily harm. Prosecutor Paul Greaney KC told the court that the Crown intends to retry both defendants on the charge they assaulted Pc Marsden. Prosecutors had told the jury that CCTV footage showed Amaaz threw 10 punches in total and that Amaad aimed six punches at firearms officer Pc Marsden. Amaaz was also said to have kicked Pc Marsden and twice struck firearms officer Pc Cook with his elbow. He was said to have punched Pc Marsden from behind and then had hold of him before Pc Cook discharged her Taser device. Mobile phone footage of a kick and stamp by Pc Marsden as Amaaz lay on the floor was shared on social media and went viral. Giving evidence, Amaaz said he feared the 'lunatic' male officer would 'batter him to death' and Amaad said he believed he was under attack. The defence said the officers used 'unlawful force' as they grabbed Amaaz from behind without announcing themselves. Amaaz was remanded in custody by Judge Neil Flewitt KC. A bail application hearing for Amaaz will take place on Thursday. In December the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced Pc Marsden would not face charges over the incident. A probe into the actions of Pc Marsden by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) remains ongoing, including a criminal investigation which may consider a re-referral to the CPS, jurors were told. Giving evidence at the trial, Pc Marsden said he was unaware Amaaz had been tasered and he kicked him in the face 'to stun the subject' as he believed he was attempting to get off the floor. He told the court he did not believe he struck Amaaz's head with a stamp in which he sought to clamp down on the loose wire of his police radio to avoid it being used as a weapon against him. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir Stephen Watson said he 'welcomed the findings' of the jury in relation to Amaaz, 'whose appalling conduct has now been exposed to legitimate public scrutiny'. 'GMP is actively supportive of a retrial in respect of the two counts where a verdict was not achieved. 'Our officers first approached the man now convicted in order to make an arrest following the unprovoked assault on an innocent man in the presence of his wife and children. 'They were responding quickly to precisely the sort of outrageous criminal behaviour that rightly offends the public. 'Whilst assaults on police officers are sadly not uncommon – 44 of my officers are assaulted every week across GM – such attacks can never be justified. Our officers are decent people who routinely place themselves in harm's way to protect the public. They deserve our respect and support.' Jurors heard Amaaz approached Mr Ismaeil after his mother told him he had repeatedly called her a 'Paki bitch' during an incoming flight from Pakistan and that he had pushed his luggage into the back of her legs. He said he wanted an apology and claimed he headbutted Mr Ismaeil in self-defence as he feared he was about to be attacked himself but the Crown said Amaaz was the aggressor who acted in anger. GMP said its investigation found 'no evidence of any prior threatening or unacceptable behaviour' by Mr Ismaeil towards Amaaz or his family. Aamer Anwar, the solicitor for the brothers, issued a brief statement outside court, with Amaad alongside him. Mr Anwar said: 'As proceedings are still live it would be inappropriate to comment any further.'
