Cocaine courier jailed after road crime officers seize £1m haul from car boot
The footage also shows an officer deploying a stinger device and a colleague opening the car's boot to find two Sports Direct bags, each carrying 18kg of cocaine, with a estimated wholesale value of up to £1.3 million.
In a statement on Monday, police said road crime team officers initially tried to pull over the Peugeot, which was believed to be linked to drugs, on the M5 in the West Midlands.
Sherratt, of no fixed address, pulled towards the hard shoulder but then sped off on the southbound M5 before heading on to the M42, where the Peugeot lost a tyre and was boxed in near Alvechurch, Worcestershire.
Police said Sherratt was seen smashing his phone against the dashboard, but messages were recovered showing he had been involved in the collection of a further 135kg of drugs, earning up to £200 per kilo delivered.
He was sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court last Monday, police said, and was jailed for 12 years and nine months after admitting being concerned in the supply of cocaine, possessing the drug with intent to supply, and dangerous driving.
Sherratt has 12 convictions for 19 offences dating back to 1995 and was jailed for six years in 2016 for conspiracy to supply class A drugs, and more than four years in 2020 for further drugs offences.
Detective Chief Inspector Peter Cooke, of the Regional Organised Crime Unit for the West Midlands, said: 'This is a major recovery of drugs that would have ultimately been sold on the streets of the UK and caused untold misery.
'Sherratt's attempt to get away from our officers was dangerous and put other road-users at risk, but great work by the Road Crime Team meant the pursuit was brought to a safe conclusion.
'He played a significant role in the distribution of drugs around the country, but will now be spending years behind bars.'
West Midlands Police said its Road Crime Team officers target criminals involved in car key burglaries and other serious and organised crime, using unmarked, high-performance cars as well as distinctive 'interceptor' vehicles.
They support the work of Operation Target, an around the clock 'mission to disrupt and arrest those involved in guns, drugs, exploitation and more'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Constance Marten's partner Mark Gordon spent 20 years in US prison for 'sadistic' rape before being freed and deported to the UK - when police asked him about his dead daughter, he just demanded mayo for his chicken sandwich
Detained by officers on a freezing February night after spending two months on the run, police only had one question for Mark Gordon: 'Where's your child?' His response says everything about the man. 'What's the big deal?' he answered, before complaining that he was hungry and demanding to be fed. Handed strips of chicken from a bag of shopping the couple had just bought, the 50-year-old said: 'Perfect, with mayonnaise please.' 'With mayonnaise?' the astonished officer replied. 'We are not going to make you a sandwich. We need to work out where your child is, mate...' But still Gordon refused to say where the baby was, and it took police another two days before the infant's body was eventually found. In subsequent interviews with detectives, Gordon insisted that he intended to say what had happened to the child when his case came to court. 'I want the jury to hear first-hand testimony and make the decision,' he said, going on to cite his rights under Magna Carta and claiming he would be 'released' once the jury heard the evidence. As yesterday's verdicts demonstrated, that was something of a miscalculation – particularly given the fact that it's not the first time Gordon has come out on the wrong side of the judicial system. Because today the Daily Mail, having spoken exclusively to his victims and obtained hundreds of pages of transcripts from the case, can reveal the full story of how Gordon spent more than 20 years in prison in America for a 'sociopathic, sadistic' rape. The crime, committed when he was 14, was so serious that he was compared in court to Ted Bundy, a serial killer who kidnapped, raped and murdered dozens of young women and girls in the US in the 1970s. It meant that while Marten – 13 years his junior – was growing up with a silver spoon in her mouth, he was eating prison-issue meals with plastic cutlery and rubbing shoulders with death row inmates. He was jailed for 40 years, but due to a change in sentencing rules in Florida he was released in 2010 and deported to Britain – the place of his birth – where, six years later, he met Marten. Today, in an interview with this newspaper, his American rape victim tells how she believes he should never have been released from prison. 'The judge said he was the most dangerous individual he'd ever seen in his time on the bench,' she said. 'He is evil. I think he should have been in jail for life. He's not fit to be around any other human beings.' In stark contrast to Marten's stately-home start to life, Gordon was raised in Birmingham, one of five children born to Sylvia Satchell, a Windrush-era nurse who arrived in Britain from Jamaica. He and his sister Karen were the youngest, and when Gordon was 11 they moved to America with their mother after she was granted a visa. They first settled in New York, living in the Bronx, before purchasing a smallhouse in Hollywood, Florida, after visiting for a holiday. For a special episode of the Mail's award-winning The Trial podcast breaking down the Constance Marten verdict, click here 'My mother worked really hard to make a better life,' said Karen Satchell, 53, who lives in London and has worked as a youth worker. 'She was granted residence and everything was good and we thought we were going to have a great life there. Then the dream turned into a nightmare.' In the spring of 1989, Gordon's mother returned to New York from Florida to sit some nursing exams, leaving her youngest son in the care of an older brother, who was visiting from England. But on the night of April 29, the teenaged Gordon attacked his first victim, a 30-year-old single mother of two whose house he broke into through a bathroom window. 'My dog woke me up barking,' she told the Mail. 'I go over to my bedroom door and stepped out and he was just right therein the living room. He was holding a knife and a big pair of hedge clippers. I started to yell and he said, 'Don't scream or I'll kill your kids'.' Gordon, who was dressed all in black, wearing gloves and with a black stocking over his face, then ordered her back into her bedroom, locking the door behind him. He would hold her there for the next four and a half hours. 'He forced me to perform oral sex on him and there was penetrative sex,' she says, struggling to control her emotions. Gordon also threatened to inflict horrific wounds with his knife. 'He was mostly ordering me around,' she recalls. 'I just kept trying to talk to him... reason with him and try to find out if there was anything else I could give him to get him to leave. 'I offered him my car not realising he was so young. I was thinking I have to find a way to live because my kids were in that other room. It was survival.' As first light broke, the victim's children woke up and started calling for their mother to give them breakfast. 'They kept wanting me to come out and I kept saying that I had a headache and was sleeping in,' she says. 'Eventually he got frustrated and tired and I didn't know what he was going to do. 'At one point I was able to get between him and the knife and I picked it up and put it behind my back. I said, 'It's getting late and my kids know something is going on. Let me put them in their room and you leave'. He finally gave in. I went out of the room. As soon as I did, I grabbed each of my kids and ran out of the front door screaming.' She headed straight to a neighbour's house, telling him she had been attacked. He grabbed his gun and returned to the house but Gordon had fled. Three weeks later Gordon broke into a second house, two doors away from his first victim. Both victims believe that Gordon had been watching their houses before breaking in. The second victim, Patrick Nash, lived with his wife and 15-month-old child. His normal Saturday routine was to leave early to visit a flea market but he had decided not to go that day. Gordon broke into the house, placing two 7in knives outside the bedroom doors before creeping into the couple's room armed with a 5ft shovel. 'Startled' to find Nash inside the room, he beat him about the head and body before fleeing. Recalling the brutal attack, Mr Nash told the Mail: 'My wife wakes up and screams. I start to get up and I'm hit in the head with a shovel. 'I miraculously was able to chase him out of the house. It was just reflex. He had taken cutlery and placed it around the house so he would have access to weapons. 'Had I not been there, my wife would have been raped. That's my conviction and that was the police's theory.' Mr Nash, whose head wounds required a number of staples, did not recognise his attacker. But some days later he found a black stocking in the garden, which led to police linking the two attacks. Gordon was arrested soon after. Neighbours reportedly told police they had seen him sitting on a stepladder in the rear garden of his house during the night, looking towards the homes he later entered. A black stocking was also said to have been found nearby. Detectives searched his home, and noticing Gordon's apparent agitation, suggested it would be in his interest to come clean. 'You're young,' one of the officers said to him. 'You've got a future ahead of you.' He was charged with armed kidnapping, five counts of armed sexual battery – or rape – two counts of armed burglary and one count of aggravated burglary. According to hundreds of pages of court transcripts seen by the Daily Mail, Gordon 'admitted to the crime and gave a sworn, taped statement out-lining the sequence of events as they occurred'. His sentencing hearing in 1990 was addressed by clinical psychologist Glenn Caddy, who interviewed Gordon extensively and found him to be of a 'dull, normal' intellect. He claimed Gordon told him he had had access to pornographic magazines and TV stations, including the Playboy channel, and had developed a 'distorted' sexual fantasy. 'It was his general belief that women would either welcome sexual advances or if they initially resisted sexual advances they were really only resisting so that they would be overcome and they actually wanted to have sex with him,' he told the court. 'He says that 'I guess that I knew that she [his victim] was scared initially', but ultimately he suspected that she might want to have sex with him.' The psychologist said Gordon was similarly motivated when he entered the second property, 'presuming that he was going to have sex with the female resident of the apartment'. Franklin Nooe, a mental-health practitioner who counselled Gordon's female victim, said that he was a sociopath who 'enjoyed telling her she was going to die'. He said it put Gordon in the same category as Ted Bundy – 'a progressive kind of rapist, that would lead to, I would expect, going from just raping to raping and murdering'. Gordon's mother also gave evidence at the sentencing hearing, revealing how she had split from his father when pregnant and that her son had met him only once, aged seven. 'He came and promised that he would come back and take him home, where he's got another family, and he never came back,' she said. She also told how she discovered that Gordon had been abused as a four-year-old while at a day nursery in Birmingham when he refused to go on an outing with a male staff member. Mrs Satchell said the police investigated the matter and the nursery worker was subsequently arrested and jailed after other children also came forward. Having moved to Florida, her son, who dreamt of becoming a doctor, had started to miss school and misbehave. His mother added that he had no friends and would occasionally dress in his sister's clothes which she thought was 'sort of sexual'. Pleading for the judge's 'mercy', she said that if he showed leniency to her 'misguided son' she would return to England with him. But that was never an option, particularly given the testimony of his female victim, who told the court the ordeal had ruined her mental health and had forced her to move out of her home. 'I ask you to make sure that this man does not have the opportunity to destroy any more lives,' she said in a dramatic speech to the court. 'I ask you to make sure that he's never allowed to be free to run the streets looking for more victims, not in my life time, not in his. 'Someone who is capable of doing this, a cruel calculated act at this young age, is not going to get better. He's only going to do more harm to society. 'Please protect the innocent by keeping the guilty in prison for his life. Show him no mercy. Show him the guilty are punished severely, not just chastised.' And punish him the judge did, handing down five life sentences and telling Gordon: 'We all have to be protected from you.' But it was not the end of the case. Gordon and his family maintained – and, indeed, maintain to this day – that he confessed to the crimes only because he was scared and pressured to do so by police. He lodged an appeal, and in 1993 successfully filed a motion to remove his confessions from the case. But his convictions were upheld, and at a re-sentencing hearing in 1994 his life sentence was replaced with one of 40 years, of which he would serve justover half. Under new rules designed to encourage the rehabilitation of prisoners, he was released from Florida State Prison in 2010 and was immediately deported back to the UK. The British authorities were informed and, as a convicted sex offender, he was obliged to report to them on a monthly basis. Given his criminal past, settling back into a country he last knew during the 1980s cannot have been easy. Police say he was unemployed and claiming benefits. Quite what the much younger Marten saw in him is impossible to say. But months after meeting him she became pregnant with the first of their five children. As well as isolating themselves from friends and family, their interactions with the authorities were marked by deep distrust. It is hard not to conclude that Gordon's experience in the US was behind that – and that his past record – coupled with allegations that he had been violent towards Marten – would have an impact on his ability to have access to his children. The jury in both trials were not told of Gordon's previous conviction for rape by the prosecution. But during evidence in the second trial, Marten revealed it to the court, saying: 'Mark has a violent rape conviction and spent 22 years in prison, so my fear was that the media would scapegoat him.' As a result, further details were shared with the jury. In his defence, Gordon suggested that Florida police had 'manipulated a 14-year-old child without parental or adult supervision' and had a history of 'racism and sometimes framing innocent people'. He said he believed in British justice, but blamed police for forcing him and Marten on the run with their newborn by launching a national manhunt. 'When somebody chases you, what do you do?' he asked the jury. 'What does the public want from us? It's our baby. Our baby is dead. Our precious Victoria is dead. What more do you want? Our names have been dragged through the mud like we are scum, baby killers.' He also praised his partner, describing her as a 'beautiful, noble' person. And, it goes without saying, loyal to the end. Because despite having seen her own life, and that of their children, ruined, Marten stood by her man – a violent, convicted rapist who cared more about a chicken sandwich than the dignity of their dead daughter.
The Sun
7 hours ago
- The Sun
I'm fuming after spotting my neighbour's camera – it looks directly into my garden and records everything my kids do
A WOMAN was left fuming after claiming her neighbour has installed a camera in their window which looks directly into her garden. The mum said she was especially concerned as her kids play in the garden in full view of the alleged recording device. 1 The woman claimed: 'He's now recording me. 'I can't cope. 'He's watching my kids, this is enough.' She didn't share whether or not she had already confronted her neighbour, but people were quick to chime in with their views on the video. Many people urged her to report the neighbour to the police, with some calling it a privacy violation. However, another said: '2 sides to every story.' The person replied: 'I don't do anything that untoward, I get anxious with confrontation. 'Next door go to sleep at 10, I respect that and make sure my house is in bed too cos not to make any noises! They scare my [sic] I'm alone with 3 small kids!' WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS? It's typically not illegal for a neighbour's security camera to capture images beyond their property boundary, but it can be intrusive and raise privacy concerns. If your CCTV footage captures images beyond your property boundary then you are subject to the data protection laws. Your kids are breaking law if they kick their ball over neighbour's fence, High Court rules after couple sued next door Legal experts say you will be regulated under the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act. You may be familiar with this when it comes to websites storing your data or companies sending you emails. Joanne Ellis, a partner at Warrington-based solicitor Stephensons, said if CCTV being captured falls outside of a homeowner's property boundaries, the person capturing the CCTV becomes a data controller. This creates a set of responsibilities for the CCTV owner. The person captured has a right to be told a CCTV system is being used and what information is being recorded. Ellis said a subject access request can be made if a neighbour refuses to do this. She said: "You can ask for the footage captured of you to be deleted - but it can be refused if there is a legitimate reason to keep it such as it captures a burglar. "Any third parties that the CCTV is disclosed to, such as police and insurers, are also obliged to process the footage in accordance with the rules." CAN YOU REFUSE TO BE FILMED? Ellis said that a neighbour can request they are not captured on CCTV, but this might not be granted if the filming complies with regulations. The CCTV owner must also process data in a lawful and transparent manner and only for specified and legitimate purposes. Ellis said: "In a domestic context, this is usually to deter or record burglaries or theft. "If the CCTV footage for example covers a potential entrance or exit and is not too intrusive for the neighbour the use is likely to be considered legitimate." As always with disputes, Ellis said, the best course of action is to speak with the neighbour, voice your concerns and try to reach agreement. If that fails it may be worth taking legal advice, but this can be pricey.
Wales Online
8 hours ago
- Wales Online
Man wanted since 2012 arrested after facial recognition app match
Man wanted since 2012 arrested after facial recognition app match The fugitive, wanted in Poland, was detained after he was spotted in Cardiff by the app Facial Recognition Vehicles in place in Cardiff A man wanted on a European arrest warrant since 2012 for assaulting a police officer with a weapon and drug dealing in Poland, is among those who has been identified and arrested as a result of a new facial recognition app being used in south Wales. Officers in South Wales and Gwent Police are the first in the UK to use the operator initiated facial recognition (OIFR) app, allowing them to identify individuals in near-real time at the touch of a button. As well as identifying people who may have given false details, or who refuse to provide details, the app can also be used to identify those who may not be able to provide details due to vulnerability or because they're unconscious or have passed away. In South Wales, 50 searches have been conducted which resulted in 10 arrests, two individuals reported for summons, two identified for non-criminal matters and six no further action. In Gwent there have been six completed uses, resulting in three matches. Two were for concerns for safety and one resulting in arrest of a man who gave false details to officers and was correctly identified using the app. The police system confirmed that he was wanted for shoplifting, assault and a motoring offence. He was subsequently charged and convicted. What is operator initiated facial recognition? South Wales Police says that OIFR is a mobile phone use of facial recognition technology (FRT), which compares a photograph of a person's face, taken on a police issue mobile phone, to the predetermined image reference database to assist an officer to identify a person for a policing purpose. Its website states: "Police officers may use the OIFR mobile app to confirm the identity of an unknown person who they suspect is missing, at imminent risk of serious harm or wanted, in circumstances when they're unable to provide details, refuse to give details or provide false details. "OIFR can also be used on a person who has died or is unconscious allowing officers to identify them so their family can be traced quickly. "The OIFR is an overt policing tool. OIFR should be used after an engagement between the Officer and the unknown person has been attempted. "Independent testing by the National Physical Laboratory found that OIFR achieved 100% accuracy, always returning the correct match as the top result, for persons in the database. "At the threshold settings we are using, if the person is not in the database, it will not return any results." Article continues below One notable use in south Wales resulted in a man being identified using the app in Cardiff who was wanted on a European arrest warrant for drug dealing and assaulting a police officer with a weapon in Poland dating back to 2012. The 38-year-old man was remanded in custody to Westminster magistrates' court. Inspector Ben Gwyer, who leads on facial recognition for South Wales and Gwent forces, said: 'These examples have allowed officers to quickly identify individuals who have refused to give details or given false details before taking appropriate action depending on the circumstances. 'These have included individuals who were found in suspicious circumstances and identified through the use of the app having given false details.' In cases where someone is wanted by police for a criminal offence, it secures their quick arrest and detention. Cases of mistaken identity are easily resolved and without the necessity to visit a police station or custody suite. A South Wales Police facial recognition unit operating in Cardiff (Image: WalesOnline/Rob Browne ) South Wales Police says that photographs taken using the app are never retained and officers receive specific guidance in relation to using the app in private places such as houses, schools, medical facilities and places of worship in order to balance the needs of policing against the right to privacy of the individual. Inspector Gwyer added: 'Police officers have always been able to spot someone who they think is missing or wanted and stop them in the street. 'This technology doesn't replace traditional means of identifying people and officers only use it in instances where it is both necessary and proportionate to do so, with the aim of keeping that particular individual, or the wider public, safe.' Article continues below
