British man held over '£200k of meth' in suitcase
A British man has been arrested in Chile after custom officials claimed to have discovered £200k worth of crystal meth inside his suitcase.
Sources in the South American country have confirmed the man to be William Eastment, from Milbourne Port in Somerset.
He had been travelling from Mexico to Chile when, according to Chilean authorities, his suitcase was found to contain more than 5kg (11lbs) of methamphetamine.
In a statement published online, customs officials said they had identified irregularities in one piece of luggage, prompting them to track down the owner.
Rodrigo Díaz, Metropolitan Customs Regional Director, said: "Once the traveller retrieved the suspicious luggage from the airport baggage carousel, it was quickly identified by our officers and moved to the secondary screening area, where the drugs team confirmed the presence of a hidden object."
More news stories for Somerset
Listen to the latest news for Somerset
Inside the suitcase, the online statement added, six plastic bags were found containing 5,100 grams (179 oz) of a white substance, later found to be methamphetamine after testing.
Mr Eastment was then handed over to anti-narcotics officers at the airport, and then remanded in custody following an initial court hearing.
A spokesperson from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) said: "We are aware of a British man detained in Chile and are in contact with his family and the local authorities."
Follow BBC Somerset on Facebook and X. Send your story ideas to us on email or via WhatsApp on 0800 313 4630.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Maori MPs suspended for performing haka in parliament
Three Maori MPs have been suspended from New Zealand's parliament for performing a haka during a sitting last year. On Thursday, the legislature voted to ban Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, the Maori Party co-leaders, for a record 21 days. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, the Maori Party MP who started the dance, was handed a seven-day suspension. Mr Waititi said the suspension was a reminder of the 'silencing' of his ancestors. He said on Thursday: 'In my maiden speech, I talked about one of our (ancestors) who was hung in the gallows of Mt Eden Prison, wrongfully accused. 'The silencing of us today is a reminder of the silencing of our ancestors of the past, and it continues to happen. Now you've traded the noose for legislation. Well, we will not be silenced.' The MPs did the haka in November as a protest after being asked if their party supported a Bill that sought to redefine New Zealand's founding treaty with the Maori people. Although performed on many different occasions, haka are often used as a kind of ceremonial war dance or challenge to authority. Winston Peters, New Zealand's foreign affairs minister, mocked Mr Waititi in the chamber on Thursday for his traditional full-face Maori tattoo. Mr Peters, who is also Maori, said: 'The Maori Party are a bunch of extremists, and middle New Zealand and the Maori world has had enough of them. 'The one that's shouting down there, with the scribbles on his face... can't keep quiet for five seconds.' Ms Maipi-Clarke, 22, sparked the controversy as parliament considered the highly contentious Treaty Principles Bill last November. In footage widely shared around the world, she rose to her feet, ripped up the Bill and started belting out the strains of a protest haka. She was joined by Mr Waititi and Ms Ngarewa-Packer, who strode on to the chamber floor chanting the Ka Mate haka, which is often performed by the country's All Blacks rugby team. Credit: X/@Maori_Party Ms Ngarewa-Packer was also accused of pointing her fingers in the shape of a gun at David Seymour, the leader of the Right-wing ACT Party, who had proposed the Bill. The trio were hauled before the parliament's privileges committee but refused to take part in the hearing. Supported by New Zealand's three governing coalition parties, the bans were voted on and accepted on Thursday. Ms Maipi-Clarke vowed that Maori would not be silenced, saying: 'A member can swear at another member, a member of Cabinet can lay their hands on a staff member, a member can drive up the steps of parliament, a member can swear in parliament, and yet they weren't given five minutes of suspension. 'Yet when we stand up for the country's foundational document, we get punished with the most severe consequences.' The Treaty Principles Bill sought to reinterpret New Zealand's founding document, signed between Maori chiefs and British representatives in 1840. Many critics saw the Bill as an attempt to wind back the special rights given to the country's 900,000-strong Maori population. Its proponents argued that the current principles of the 1840 Bill have distorted its original intent, resulting in Maori now having more rights than non-Maori. Parliament resoundingly voted down the Bill in April. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump travel ban will affect British tourists
Nationals from 12 countries will be barred from entering the United States under President Trump's new travel ban. In a video posted by the White House on Wednesday June 4, President Trump said the restrictions were 'a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks on American soil.' In addition to the 12 countries facing a total ban, nationals from an additional seven countries will face partial restrictions on entering the United States. The travel ban echoes a similar policy introduced in 2017, during Trump's first term, when he banned foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The only countries that feature on both 2017 and 2025 lists are Iran, Libya and Somalia. Nationals from the following countries cannot travel to the US for immigrant or non-immigrant purposes: Afghanistan Myanmar Chad Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Somalia Sudan Yemen Certain visa programs on offer to nationals from the following countries have been suspended, but an outright travel ban has not been implemented: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela Announcing the ban, President Trump said: 'The list is subject to revision based on whether material improvements are made and likewise new countries can be added as threats emerge around the world.' Athletes travelling for major sporting events (including the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics), certain dual nationals and Afghan nationals with Special Immigrant Visas will be exempt. The secretary of state also said there could be exemptions made on a 'case-by-case' basis. Despite Donald Trump citing the recent attack in Colorado by an Egyptian national when announcing his latest travel ban, Egypt is not included in the 19 countries. The broad reason for the travel ban is 'national security', but there are some specific categories. For some countries the concern is that there is no reliable process for issuing passports or vetting nationals leaving the country. This applies to Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Venezuela. For others, the concern is that there are a high number of immigrants overstaying their US visas. This applies to Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Burundi, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo and Turkmenistan. Then there are the countries that are included because of terrorist activity or 'state-sponsored terrorism'. These include Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Libya and Somalia. The travel ban will come into effect on June 9, 2025. No end date has been provided. This gives slightly more time for preparations to be made compared to 2017's executive order, when there was widespread disruption across US airports as nationals from banned countries were turned around at the border. Dual nationals are exempt from the travel ban. If you hold both British and Iranian passports and travel into the United States on a British passport, you will not be automatically denied entry. However, certain dual nationals (including British/Iranian nationals) are exempt from the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (Esta) visa-waiver scheme and will need to apply for a full visa (see below). The United States prevents British citizens from applying for an Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (Esta) visa waiver if they have visited certain countries since March 2011. These are Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Somalia (including Somaliland), Sudan, Syria and Yemen. This, however, is not linked to the Trump travel ban. The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act was signed by Barack Obama in 2015. You also cannot apply for an Esta visa waiver if you have been to Cuba since January 12, 2021, after Donald Trump designated Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. If you have travelled to these countries, it is not impossible to enter the United States, but it does mean you need to apply (and pay) for a full US visa. You will also need to apply for a full visa if you are a UK citizen with dual nationality with Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea or Sudan, regardless of whether you have been present in that country since March 2011. You can apply for an Esta (valid for up to 90 days of travel) online for the price of $21 (£15.50). To get a visa, you will need to attend an appointment at the US embassy and pay $185 (£136) during the application stage. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Illegal immigrant can stay in UK for daughter he does not speak to
An asylum judge allowed an illegal immigrant stay in Britain despite 'contradictory findings' that his relationship with his daughter was good – but had also broken down. Andrew Kung'u Gichuhi, from Kenya, won his appeal to remain in the country, with a new hearing pending, after an immigration judge said Mr Gichuhi could stay in the UK because he had a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, and it would not be right to expect her to leave Britain. But, later on in her judgment, she appeared to contradict her earlier comments, saying there had been a breakdown in the father-daughter relationship. After the Home Office argued that her findings were 'irrational', an upper tribunal judge has now ruled that Mr Gichuhi's claim should be heard again. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph in which illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have been able to remain in the UK or halt their deportations on human rights grounds. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has announced plans to kerb judges' powers to block deportations with new 'common sense' rules to clarify how they interpret the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) article eight, which provides the right to a family life. The Home Secretary's rules are also intended to strengthen the public interest test, in which courts need to be hold themselves accountable and only grant exceptions to laws with justified reasons. Mr Gichuhi was living in the UK illegally as an unmarried partner of a British national when he applied for citizenship. The Home Office rejected his application, arguing that there were 'no insurmountable obstacles to family life with his partner continuing in Kenya'. The Home Office said he did not have a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, from a previous marriage. Mr Gichuhi appealed the decision to a lower-tier tribunal. The unnamed judge found that there was a 'genuine and subsisting' parental relationship between Gichuhi and his daughter, who 'could not reasonably be expected to leave the United Kingdom'. But later in the judgment, she said the relationship was 'broken down' and that there was 'no contact' between the Mr Gichuhi and his daughter. In the appeal against the 'irrational' finding, the Home Office said 'a relationship could not be both genuine and subsisting and broken down'. It added the judge had also been 'speculating about the possibility of future contact'. Those representing Mr Gichuhi argued that the judge had been 'entitled' to find that the relationship was subsisting, because he sent £100 a month to his daughter's bank account. They said he sent the money on an 'entirely voluntary basis', and his daughter had not returned the money. However, while they argued that a relationship could be 'genuine and subsisting' in 'the absence of contact', they accepted that 'subsisting was the antithesis of broken down'. For this reason, Mr Gichuhi's lawyers accepted that the judge's position was 'at least contradictory' and she had not explained how 'the contradictory positions were reconciled'. Upper Tribunal Judges Adrian Seelhoff and Sean O'Brien concluded: 'Consequently, the judge's finding at that [Mr Gichuhi's] relationship with his daughter had 'broken down' is inconsistent with her finding later in that paragraph that it was 'subsisting'. 'No attempt had been made to reconcile these contradictory findings. It follows that the judge's decision involved the making of an error of law.' They ruled that the case must be reheard afresh by another judge. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
