More than 100 public servants who died in service awarded Elizabeth Emblem
In the second list of Elizabeth Emblem recipients, some 106 police officers, firefighters, overseas workers and other public servants who died in service were recognised, with the award given to their next of kin.
Among the recipients is Metropolitan Police Constable Nina Mackay, who died aged 25 after being stabbed by a violent and mentally unstable man while searching a property in Stratford, East London in October 1997.
Her mother, Patricia Mackay, 80, said Nina had a 'great social conscience', adding 'everybody liked working with her because she was very hard working'.
She told the PA news agency: 'The Metropolitan Police have awarded her many accolades, and the commissioner at the time, just after she was killed, recommended her for the George Medal, which was turned down.
'So after all these years, there's actually something tactile that I can hold.'
Discussing the memorials to her daughter, Ms Mackay, who lives in Nairn, Scotland, said: 'She's got the Targa Boat on the Thames that's named after her, and that will be ongoing forever. The street where it happened was changed to Nina Mackay Close.
'There's been so much that I'm very grateful for, but this will actually be something tactile that I could hold to remind me what a brave young woman she was.'
Another recipient was school teacher Gwen Mayor, 45, who was killed in 1996 while protecting her pupils at Dunblane Primary School, Scotland, during a mass shooting.
In a statement provided by her husband, Rodney Mayor, who now lives in Cyprus, the Mayor family said they were 'extremely proud and honoured to be receiving this award on behalf of Gwen'.
They added: 'We always believed her actions that day deserved more recognition.
'You would have to have known Gwen to know that she would have done whatever trying to protect the children in her care. She paid the ultimate price for that commitment.
'Finally, we now feel that she has been honoured for what happened that day.'
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden said: 'We owe an enduring debt to the public servants who give their lives to protect others.
'The Elizabeth Emblem is a reminder not just of the ultimate price their loved ones have paid in service of our communities, it is a lasting symbol of our national gratitude for their incredible sacrifice.'
Firefighter John Liptrott, who died in 1968 while attempting to rescue three children who had entered a disused mineshaft, was also awarded the Emblem.
Another recipient was Police Constable Dennis Cowell, who died in the River Thames in 1965 after a police launch capsized following a collision between three boats.
Six people who contracted Covid-19 while working in healthcare were recognised in the list.
These included Dr Poornima Nair Balupuri, a GP living in Bishop Auckland, Co Durham, who died in 2020 doing frontline work.
Some 33 people on the list were police officers and firefighters based in Northern Ireland, including Constable Cyril Wilson, who was shot by the IRA in an ambush in 1974.
Reserve Constable Robert Struthers, who died in 1978 while serving in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was also awarded the Emblem – he was shot by two members of the Provisional IRA while working in his office.
The design of the Elizabeth Emblem incorporates a rosemary wreath, a traditional symbol of remembrance, which surrounds the Tudor Crown.
It is inscribed with 'For A Life Given In Service' and will have the name of the person for whom it is in memoriam inscribed on the reverse of the Emblem.
The Emblem will also include a pin to allow the award to be worn on clothing by the next of kin of the deceased.
Families and next of kin of those who have died in public service are able to apply for an Elizabeth Emblem by making an application to the Cabinet Office.
The Elizabeth Emblem is awarded to the next of kin of a person who was employed in a role based on the source of a commission on behalf of, or formally funded by, an eligibility body.
An eligible body is defined as the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, local government, a Crown Dependency or a British Overseas Territory.
The award of the Elizabeth Emblem is retrospective to 1948 and mirrors the eligibility criteria for the Elizabeth Cross.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Leading KC raises concerns over accused rights in rape trials
However, Mr Ross believes that he should draw attention to the situation for fear of the impact of silence upon the delivery of justice. "We have reached the stage where the victim has lied about things and the court has not allowed the defence to put that before the jury. "How can it be said that someone has had a fair trial when it's been proved that the complainer lied about something important in the course of the inquiry and that was not allowed to be introduced as evidence?" he told The Herald. "There are serious concerns that people are not getting a fair trial when they are not being given the opportunity to provide evidence which might support their innocence". He added: "The lawyers who are taking on these rape and sexual assault cases tend to be less experienced, more junior members of the bar. It's difficult for them to come out and make a claim of this type. "They have their whole career in front of them. At some point they might want to go for a role as a sheriff or a judge, and they will understandably be concerned that if they speak out or are seen to be publicly critical of the criminal justice system that will damage their chances. "But many many lawyers are raising the matter with me. When you hear a lawyer complaining in court about some decision that has gone against them, 90% of the time it's this issue. It is a massive concern." READ MORE: The situation revolves around what evidence is allowed to be heard in open court before a jury. Sometimes known as "rape shield" laws, specific provisions to regulate the use of sexual history evidence were first introduced in Scotland by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985. These provisions were later repeated in sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. In response to concerns about their operation, the provisions in the 1995 Act were replaced by new sections 274 and 275 in 2002. The High Court in Glasgow (Image: PA) The provisions are designed to protect complainers giving evidence from irrelevant, intrusive and often distressing questioning. Sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 Act were intended to protect complainers in sexual offence trials from inappropriate questioning about their sexual history and wider character and lifestyle when giving evidence in court. In particular, they were designed to discourage the use of evidence seen as of limited relevance, where the primary purpose of the evidence is to undermine the credibility of the complainer or divert attention from the issues that require to be determined at trial. There are strict rules over what evidence can be heard in rape trials (Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto) However, Mr Ross said the manner in which the rules have been interpreted by the court has been problematic with debate centring on what evidence is judged to be relevant or not. An application to lead evidence of the type struck at by Section 274 must be made at a preliminary hearing – almost always before full preparation for the trial had has been completed - putting the defence at a huge disadvantage. "In the 1985 act the thinking was - why should you be allowed to ask the woman about sex with another man or sex with the accused on a different occasion but in 2002 the scope was extended to include non sexual behaviour," he said. He continued: "At the preliminary hearing you might not have all the case papers, won't know for sure what the complainer is likely to say in evidence, as it might be a year before the trial. "The need for an application within a strict time limit made it very difficult for defence lawyers." He said further restrictions to rules over the admissibility of evidence had since been made in case law. "In short it became extremely difficult to know what you were allowed to ask," said Mr Ross. "Every day you were hearing examples of people saying they thought a piece of evidence was relevant but the judge has ruled that it would not be allowed. "Defendants would be going around with messages, photographs, things they thought would prove them to be innocent and the judges would not allow them to tell the jury about those pieces of exculpatory evidence." Mr Ross went on to say a number of Scottish rape cases relating to the admissibility of evidence were currently before the Supreme Court having had appeals against conviction dismissed. A number of Scottish cases are before the Supreme Court for consideration. (Image: Dan Kitwood) In one of the cases the victim alleged that the accused had raped her when she was 13, claiming she became pregnant and given birth to a child. However, there was no evidence that she had become pregnant or given birth - a matter that the accused wanted to present to the jury. His lawyer had taken the view that it was extremely unlikely that the trial court would allow such evidence to be presented – and the Scottish appeal court agreed with that assessment and refused his appeal. Mr Ross said a second case at the Supreme Court revolved around a man convicted of rape following a work night out. The man was with the woman, whom he supervised, in a pub where both were drinking. "There was apparently CCTV evidence showing the complainer beckoning the accused into a disabled toilet where they had sex," said Mr Ross. "They both later left the bar, got a taxi to his house and woke up next morning in bed together." The woman alleged she was raped. "He was interviewed by police and explained that events at the pub exactly as they had been captured by the CCTV. "He was then charged with rape in the disabled pub toilet and rape in the house." "But the prosecutor became aware that the judge may allow CCTV evidence from the pub, so dropped the pub charge, with the result that the defence was not allowed to lead evidence about what had happened in the pub. His account of what happened in the pub was entirely supported by the CCTV evidence. "It supported his credibility but he wasn't allowed to put the CCTV evidence before the jury as the court ruled that it wasn't relevant to the charges at his house." Mr Ross went on to say that he didn't "accept there is a low conviction rate for rape or sexual assault" as there is a lack of relevant data. He addition he suggested that it was misleading to compare conviction in rape cases rapes to those in other types of crime such as murder. "In a murder case there might be 15 sources of evidence, from eyewitnesses, DNA, finger prints in murder cases, while in a rape case just there is very often only one source of evidence - namely the person making the complaint. "So it's entirely unsurprising that there are lower conviction rates for rape than murder." A spokesperson for Rape Crisis Scotland said: 'We wish Thomas Ross KC would express equal concern about ensuring justice for survivors of sexual violence. 'The conviction for rape cases involving a single complainer is only 24%. The overall conviction rate for all crime is 86%. Too many women are being completely let down by the Scottish criminal justice system. "We continue to hear from women about how distressing their treatment is at the hands of some defence lawyers.' Mr Ross responded: "I've met many women who feel completely let by the Scottish criminal justice system. I've met many men who feel completely let down by the criminal justice system too - including men who believe that the court's interpretation of section 275 deprived them of a fair trial. "With so many people feeling completely let down by the system - maybe its time to have another look at the way it operates." A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service said it would be inappropriate for the Judicial Office to comment on Mr Ross's personal views. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Everyone has the right to a fair trial and to appeal against a conviction or sentence. There are well-established rules on what evidence can be led in sexual offences trials, and clear routes to challenge how these are applied.'
Glasgow Times
5 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
What is a proscribed organisation?
On Thursday the House of Lords backed proscribing the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 without a vote. But what is proscription and what does it mean for an organisation to be proscribed? – What is a proscribed organisation? According to the Government website, under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. Yvette Cooper is Home Secretary (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Under the law this means the organisation commits or takes part in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism), or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed it is illegal to join or show support for it. – What does terrorism mean when talking about proscription? As defined in the Act, terrorism means the use or threat of action which involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person's life (other than that of the person committing the act), creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The definition also sets out that the use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Additionally, it must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. – What factors are taken into consideration when determining whether proscription is proportionate? According to the Government website, the Home Secretary will take into account the nature and scale of an organisation's activities, the specific threat that it poses to the country, and the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas. Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice amid a hearing over whether the proscribing of Palestine Action should be temporarily blocked (Lucy North/PA) The Home Secretary will also consider the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK, and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. – Which other groups have been designated as proscribed organisations? There are currently 81 international terrorist groups proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation. The most recent proscription orders concerned Hamas, the Wagner Group, Hizb ut Tahrir and Terrorgram. Other organisations on the list include Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), and various aliases, and al Qaida. – Once an organisation is proscribed, what becomes illegal? It becomes a criminal offence to belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas, or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is also illegal to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation, express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation. Other offences include arranging, managing or assisting in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances. – Once proscribed, will an organisation remain banned forever? No. The Home Secretary will consider deproscription on application only. The law allows any organisation or any person affected by a proscription to submit a signed, written application to the Home Secretary requesting that they consider whether a specified organisation should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations.
Glasgow Times
6 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. Proscribing the group under anti-terror laws makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison (Lucy North/PA) In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. Protesters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday (Lucy North/PA) In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
