Case of suspect charged over gang sex attacks on two men in Glasgow in 2003 'under consideration' by Crown Office
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) told Sky News a report had been received from Police Scotland, with the circumstances of the case remaining "under consideration".
Late on Saturday 13 September 2003, a 22-year-old man was physically and sexually assaulted by three men who had approached him in a park near to the River Kelvin in Glasgow.
About two hours later, in the early hours of Sunday 14 September 2003, a 25-year-old man was also physically and sexually assaulted by three men.
More than two decades on, a 56-year-old man was arrested and charged on Thursday in connection with both incidents.
A Crown Office spokesperson said: "A standard prosecution report has been received by the procurator fiscal from Police Scotland in relation to a 56-year-old man and alleged criminal behaviour between September and November 2024.
Police Scotland said the investigation remains ongoing to identify and trace two other male suspects.
The force also urged those who may have been the victim of a similar attack to come forward.
Detective Inspector John Dowds said: "These incidents were frightening and distressing for the victims who have had to wait over 20 years for someone to be arrested in connection with what happened.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police investigate as traffic vigilante CyclingMikey flings bike in front of car travelling through no entry zone
This is the moment a vigilante cyclist flings his bike in front of a car in an attempt to stop it driving through a no entry zone. Michael van Erp, otherwise known by his online persona Cycling Mikey, was filmed by an onlooker on Sunday (10 August) attempting to stop a Fiat 500 driver trying to bypass roadworks the wrong way on Paddenswick Road in Hammersmith. Footage shows a confrontation between the pair before the driver accelerates, with van Erp pushing his bike in front of the vehicle in an effort to stop it and the resulting crash scattering his possessions into the road. A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said they have been made aware of the footage and are investigating.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What will happen to people arrested on Palestine Action demonstration?
The consequences of being arrested for expressing support for Palestine Action could be 'life-changing', one of those detained during Saturday's protests, Sir Jonathon Porritt, has admitted. While the former government adviser said that he had carefully deliberated over a decision to take part, the road ahead for the more than 500 people arrested on Saturday involves possible criminal charges, court cases and convictions. Ultimately, custodial sentences of as much as 14 years could be imposed. Those whose details could be confirmed were released on bail to appear at a police station at a future date. The police will be sending case files to the Crown Prosecution Service, as it has already done in the case of at least 26 others who were arrested at previous protests in support of Palestine Action. All those arrested have now been released under police bail, with the main condition being not to attend any future demonstrations aiming to overwhelm the criminal justice system in protest at the proscription of Palestine Action by the British government. They will be asked how they plead and if it is not guilty they can elect for a trial before a magistrate or, more likely, a district judge. The majority of the 522 people arrested in Parliament Square – in most cases after displaying pieces of cardboard saying 'I opposed genocide, I support Palestine Action' – were detained under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 'lower level' part of the act, which means those who are charged will be tried in a magistrates court rather than a crown court. Some have been charged under the more serious section 12, which means they could seek to have their case heard in front of a jury of their peers at a crown court. The prosecution could also seek to have the trial heard there. Defend Our Juries, the organising group behind the protest, has said it won't be recommending what people do, as they have already participated 'at huge personal cost' but it will be 'providing the information'. There is a scenario in which court trials do not happen, if the co-founder of Palestine Action is successful in a legal challenge against the home secretary's decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws. Given that most those arrested on Saturday will be investigated under section 13 of the terrorism act, they could well walk free from court. They face a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000 or both, while magistrates will also take into account factors such as good character. More than half of those arrested on Saturday were also aged 60 or over. Those arrested under the more serious section 12 of the Terrorism Act face a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison if convicted. However, such individuals could end up being tried before a jury in a crown court. In recent cases under section 13, people charged with supporting Hamas, including displaying pictures of hang gliders such as those used in the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, were given absolute or conditional discharges. Will a jury drawn from their peers be more likely to sympathise with those arrested on Saturday? Those involved in organising the protest are confident that the British public is on the same page as them. The impact of such a conviction would be felt in everything from employment to travel. Many of those arrested are retired and, while they do not have a job to lose, the possibility of being unable to get a visa to go abroad might weigh. However, the consequences are starker for others arrested on Saturday including health workers and doctors. There was an organised 'health block' of 13 medical professionals – including an obstetrician and gynaecologist, three other working doctors, a number of nurses, and retired doctors. Alice Clack, a senior obstetrician and gynaecologist in the NHS, said: 'If doctors are charged with a crime we have to self-report to the GMC [General Medical Council], who then have a look at the crime in question and decide whether to refer it to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. 'Then, someone could expect to be suspended or they could be erased from the register. That is the possibility.' As for seeking future employment, recent legislation largely reduced the period of time during which those convicted of most crimes must declare a conviction. However, while it reduced the period of time during which an individual must declare a conviction, it does not apply to terrorist offences – which never become spent.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Praising a female colleague's ‘conservative' attire is a ‘slur'
Telling a female colleague that they dress in a 'conservative' way could be heard as 'a slur', a tribunal has ruled. A male employee who makes such a remark is guilty of 'objectifying' his colleagues who could regard it as 'less than complimentary', an employment judge said. The ruling came in the case of Jessie Danquah, a business consultant at Shell, who was sacked after 'bullying' colleague Naima Masud. He then sued his employer for discrimination on the basis that he held a 'philosophical belief in modesty'. Judge Adam Leith, dismissing his claim, said it was 'objectively inappropriate' of him to state at a work event that his colleague was 'conservative' compared with others there 'who have their boobs out'. It could have been interpreted by Ms Masud to mean 'frumpy' or other 'less than complimentary' adjectives, he said. The tribunal in Croydon, south-east London, heard that Mr Danquah was employed in April 2022 as a £26,000-a-year business consultant for FDM Group, a business support services supplier. In August of that year he was sent on a placement to Shell, where Ms Masud worked. In September he went to a work event organised by Shell at Bar Elba, a cocktail bar in Waterloo, central London, where he made alleged comments to Ms Masud including: 'I didn't expect people like you to be out that late.' The tribunal heard that when asked what he meant, Mr Danquah replied: 'Muslim girls'. He also 'repeatedly called Ms Masud 'conservative' during the night, in reference to her personality and her hijab'. Mr Danquah said the 'conservative' remark was intended to affirm his belief that 'she carried herself modestly'. Comments were 'inappropriate' A few days after this incident, Ms Masud told Mr Danquah that she thought his behaviour had been 'unprofessional' and that his comments about her being conservative were 'inappropriate'. Ms Masud reported the remarks to HR and when Mr Danquah found out he offered to 'voluntarily suspend' his work, and was formally suspended later in September. Mr Danquah apologised for the 'conservative' remark but said it was 'objectively true' and not meant to 'demean her'. After it was decided that his placement at Shell would not continue, Mr Danquah sent an email to Ms Masud threatening to sue her for defamation. In November 2022, he attended a disciplinary meeting which found that the email amounted to 'gross misconduct'. He was subsequently fired from FDM Group over this and several other instances of misconduct. Mr Danquah was told that his 'conservative' comment was a breach of the company's 'bullying and harassment policy and was associated with Ms Masud's sex, religion and belief'. He sued FDM for race, sex and belief discrimination claiming that he held a 'philosophical belief in modesty'. Dismissing his claims, Judge Leith said: 'Based on the evidence before us, we are not satisfied that [Mr Danquah] genuinely held the belief he professed to believe at the relevant times.'
