Wakefield: Man seriously injured in Crofton group machete attack
A car was left at the scene, police said, with a further vehicle found abandoned in Sharlston Common.Det Insp Fiona Allan said: "I would like to reassure the public that we are dedicating significant resources to investigating this incident to ensure that those involved are identified and arrested."We will also have an increased neighbourhood policing presence in the area to provide further reassurance to residents."
Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour releasing prisoners serving 10 or more years early
Prisoners serving sentences of more than 10 years have been released early by Labour, it has been claimed. Some 248 convicts sentenced to 14 years or more in prison and 490 criminals handed sentences between 10 to 14 years have been let out early under a scheme to reduce jail overcrowding, the Daily Mail reported. In total, 26,000 inmates have been released early since Sir Keir Starmer became prime minister, according to the newspaper. Within days of last year's general election Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, announced plans to release prisoners early to avoid what she said would have been a 'total collapse' of the system if left unaddressed. Prisoners jailed for sexual offences, terrorism and serious violent crimes carrying more than four years in prison have been excluded from the scheme. The newspaper's figures cover the period between September, when the early releases began, and March. Some 3,500 prisoners are apparently being released early every month, or more than 150 each working day. This means about 40,000 prisoners will have been released early by the end of this month if current trends continue. A scheme to tackle overcrowding in prisons - introduced by the former Tory government - led to 13,325 offenders being released over 11 months, which is about one third of the rate being freed by Labour. Those inmates were let out up to 70 days early. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, told the Daily Mail: 'The public are sick of soft justice. Instead of introducing emergency measures to let criminals out early, Starmer should change our broken human rights law so we can deport the thousands of foreign offenders clogging up our jails. These shocking statistics explain why Britain feels lawless.' After the scheme began, 3,785 prisoners were freed in September and 5,366 in October, which included backdated releases. Since then, an average 3,461 a month have been let out early - bringing the total to 26,456 by the end of March. When the scheme began, one convicted drug dealer told The Telegraph being released early had made him a 'lifelong Labour voter'. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: 'This Government inherited prisons days from collapse and had no choice but to take decisive action to stop prisons overflowing and leave police unable to make arrests. 'Public protection is our number one priority. Offenders out on licence face strict conditions and will be brought back to prison if they break these rules. 'We are building 14,000 prison places and reforming sentencing so jails never run out of space again.'
BBC News
37 minutes ago
- BBC News
Family urge new IOPC probe over restrained man's death
The police watchdog is being urged to conduct another investigation into officers' handling of a man who died hours after being restrained during a mental health Fletcher, 26, died in hospital in Nottingham on 3 July 2022 after a police welfare check escalated into a decision to section investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) - carried out before an inquest into Mr Fletcher's death - found police actions were "reasonable and proportionate". However, Mr Fletcher's family want the IOPC to take further action after an inquest jury in July concluded "gross failings" by Nottinghamshire Police and others involved contributed to his death. Nathaniel Ameyaw, Mr Fletcher's father, said: "It took for a jury to uncover things, uncover failings that the IOPC should have done."Our hope is that they will investigate again and take a thorough look at the police's policies, procedures, what they should have done, what they didn't do - because it wasn't thorough." Mr Fletcher was diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder in 2020 and had struggled with a drug were called to his accommodation, at young people's charity YMCA, to carry out a welfare check on 3 July 2022 following concerns he would harm agreeing to be taken to hospital by the officers, Mr Fletcher suddenly changed his mind, no longer believing they were really was then detained under the Mental Health Fletcher was handcuffed, struck and restrained for about 30 minutes by numerous officers. Eventually an ambulance arrived, and he was taken to the Queen's Medical Centre, where he had been called to the home of Mr Fletcher's mother the day before his death, as he was experiencing another "mental health disturbance".It was discussed then that he should be sectioned and taken to a place of safety - a decision his family under the guidance of a community nurse, Mr Fletcher was taken back to his accommodation with no further condition deteriorated overnight and led to the police welfare check that started the chain of events leading to his death. Investigation report Nottinghamshire Police made a referral to the IOPC on 3 July 2022, and the watchdog said it made a decision to investigate on the same day. The investigation examined police contact with Mr Fletcher on the morning he died, as well as the previous day when they were called to his mother's also considered complaints raised by the family about consideration of his mental health, officers' use of force restraining him and an allegation he was treated differently because he was IOPC's final report was completed in April 2024 and was shared with the coroner and Mr Fletcher's family to assist with the findings were only made public after the inquest had watchdog found "no evidence" of a criminal offence or behaviour that justified disciplinary added there was no evidence supporting the allegation of less favourable treatment of Mr Fletcher. Mr Fletcher's cause of death was recorded as "the physical effects of exertion following a period of restraint, combined with the cocaine and other substances". After a four-week inquest, the jury concluded the level of restraint used by the officers was "appropriate" but found their combined force was "uncontrolled".The jury said there was "ineffective communication" at the scene and a "lack of clear leadership".They added police should have considered the length of time Mr Fletcher was kept in restraints and concluded there was a "gross failure" in training across all agencies involved. The inquest heard how, under a joint policy between police and East Midlands Ambulance Service, officers at the scene should have called for an ambulance. However, an ambulance was not called for until after the initial period of restraint. Police giving evidence at the inquest told the jury they were unaware of the policy. 'Still fighting for answers' Mr Ameyaw said he was comforted by the jury's findings and felt they had seen what had happened "the way [he] saw it".The 49-year-old added: "After my son passed, we had no choice but to put our faith in the IOPC. "They came and met with us as a family. They came to our home and they assured us that they were going to do a thorough investigation. "They were the ones that had access to the body-worn footage, they were the ones that were going to give us the answers." But Mr Ameyaw said: "As a family we are still fighting for answers and it's very difficult." Derrick Campbell, IOPC regional director, said: "We have acknowledged the narrative verdict returned by the inquest jury and respect their findings. "I reiterate my deepest sympathies for Kaine's family and friends for their loss. This is a truly tragic case in which a young man lost his life."Our investigation involved a detailed examination of the evidence, including calls made to police, police incident logs, police radio communication, police officers' body worn video, officers' training records, CCTV, and medical reports. "We also obtained witness accounts from all parties involved, including independent witnesses, police officers, and ambulance staff."Nottinghamshire Police previously said it would reflect on the findings the coroner made and continued to take "all the necessary steps to keep the public and our workforce safe". If you've been affected by the issues in this story, help and support is available via the BBC Action Line.
BBC News
37 minutes ago
- BBC News
The flaws in medical evidence on all sides of the Lucy Letby case
When it comes to the Lucy Letby case, there are two parallel universes. In one, the question of her guilt is settled. She is a monster who murdered seven babies and attempted to murder seven more while she was a nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and the other universe, Letby is the victim of a flawed criminal justice system in which unreliable medical evidence was used to condemn and imprison an innocent woman. This is what Letby's barrister Mark McDonald argues. He says he has the backing of a panel of the best experts in the world who say there is no evidence any babies were deliberately extremes are both disturbing and bewildering. One of them is wrong - but which? Who should we believe? An alternative version of events The families of the infants say there is no doubt. Letby was convicted after a 10-month trial by a jury that had considered a vast range of evidence. They say Letby's defenders are picking on small bits of evidence out of context and that the constant questioning of her guilt is deeply distressing.I have spent almost three years investigating the Letby case - in that time I have made three Panorama documentaries and cowritten a book on the subject. Yet, if true, the new evidence, presented by Mark McDonald in a series of high-profile press conferences and media releases, is to his experts, the prosecution expert medical case is unreliable. Mark McDonald has not released the panel's full reports, which are currently with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body he needs to persuade to reopen Letby's case, but he has released summaries of the panel's findings. Letby was found guilty of 15 counts of murder and attempted murder, and the jury in her original trial reached unanimous verdicts on three of those cases. That is a good indication of where the strongest medical evidence might get a sense of the imperfections woven through both the prosecution and the defence arguments, it's worth looking at one of those cases in which the guilty verdict was unanimous: that of Baby O. What really happened to Baby O? Baby O was born in June 2016, one of triplet brothers. At Letby's trial, the jury was told that his death was in part the result of liver injuries, which the prosecution pathologist described as impact-type injuries - similar to those in a car in other cases for which Letby was convicted, the prosecution said circumstantial evidence also tied her to the crime. However, a paediatric pathologist who was not involved in the case but has seen Baby O's post-mortem report, says it was "unlikely" Baby O's liver injuries were caused by impact - as the prosecution claims."You can't completely rule out the possibility," says the pathologist, who does not want to be identified. "But in my view, the location of the injuries and the condition of the liver tissue itself don't fit with that explanation."Which raises the obvious question - if the prosecution were wrong about Baby O's liver injuries, then why did he die? Questions around air embolism Letby was accused of injecting air into the blood of Baby O as well as that of other babies. This, the prosecution said, caused an air bubble and a blockage in the circulation known as air the trial the prosecution pointed to several pieces of evidence to make their case, including a 1989 academic study of air embolism in pre-term babies, which noted skin discolouration as one possible feature of it. Prosecutors argued that these same skin colour changes were observed in several babies in the Letby case. However, Dr Shoo Lee, a Canadian neonatologist and one of the authors of that 1989 study, is now part of Letby's team of defence experts working with Mark McDonald. He argues that his study was says skin discolouration has not featured in any reported cases of air embolism in babies where the air has entered the circulation via a vein – which is what the prosecution alleged happened in the Letby case. In other words, the prosecution was wrong to use skin discolouration as evidence of air sounds significant. But is it enough to defeat the air embolism allegations? As with many aspects of the Letby case, the answer is not prosecution did not rely on skin discolouration alone to make their case for air embolism. And although there have not been any reported cases of skin discolouration in babies where air has entered the circulation via a vein, some critics have argued that the number of reported air embolism cases is small and that the theory is still possible. To muddy the waters further, another of Mark McDonald's panel of experts has said that in fact there was post-mortem evidence of air embolism in the babies. "We know these babies suffered air embolism because of the post-mortem imaging in some of them," says Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal believes this is highly likely to have occurred during resuscitation, and that there are much more plausible explanations for the collapses and deaths of the babies in the Letby case than air embolism. The air embolism theory, she said, was "highly speculative". But her remarks show the debate is far from settled. The needle theory: another explanation? There has been another explanation for Baby O's December 2024, Mark McDonald called a press conference in which one of his experts, Dr Richard Taylor, claimed that a doctor had accidentally pierced the baby's liver with a needle during resuscitation. This, he argued, had led to the baby's Taylor added: "I think the doctor knows who they are. I have to say from a personal point of view that if this had happened to me, I'd be unable to sleep at night knowing that what I had done had led to the death of a baby, and now there is a nurse in jail, convicted of murder."The doctor accused of causing the baby's death was subsequently identified as Stephen Brearey – one of Letby's principal accusers at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Mr Brearey says: "Given the ongoing investigations and inquiries, and to respect the confidentiality of those involved, I will not be making any further comment at this time." It was a bombshell claim. But does the evidence support it? One indication that the needle theory might be shaky was that Dr Taylor, by his own admission, had not seen Baby O's medical notes and was relying on a report that had been written by two other obvious problem with the needle theory is that it had already been examined at length during Letby's trial. The prosecution pathologist concluded that there was no evidence that a needle had pierced Baby O's liver while he was alive and the paediatric pathologist we spoke to told us: "These injuries weren't caused by a needle. They were in different parts of the liver and there was no sign of any needle injury on the liver." Even if the needle had penetrated the baby's liver, it cannot explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place or why he died - the needle was inserted after the baby's final and fatal collapse towards the end of the asked if he still stood by his comments about the doctor's needle, Dr Taylor told us that while the needle may not have been the primary cause of death, his "opinion has not substantially changed".He said the "needle probably penetrated the liver" of Baby O, and "probably accelerated his demise". Lack of consensus among the experts The question of where this leaves the case presented by Mark McDonald's panel of experts when it comes to the needle theory is a difficult one to would appear that among Letby's defenders, there is not neonatologist Dr Neil Aiton is one of the authors of the original report on which Dr Taylor based his comments. Dr Aiton says that he has examined the evidence independently and has concluded that Baby O's liver injuries were caused by inappropriate resuscitation attempts, including hyperinflation of the baby's he also says it was "pretty clear" a needle had punctured the liver during Dr Aiton was told that other experts, including the paediatric pathologist who spoke to the BBC, have examined the case of Baby O and said that it is implausible to conclude this happened, he said that there were two possibilities. Either the liver ruptured because of a needle or it ruptured spontaneously. Dr Aiton's position appears to be that poor resuscitation caused the baby's liver injuries and whether it was a needle or not is "not important".That is a contrast from what Dr Taylor said in that December press conference. And critics say Dr Aiton's account still does not explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place and why he needed such desperate resuscitation.A summary report from Letby's expert panel appears to back further away from the needle theory. It says a needle "may have" punctured the experts, including the paediatric pathologist, said that Dr Aiton's observation of hyper-inflated lungs would not explain Baby O's liver again, the case illustrates how difficult it is to distinguish between plausible and implausible claims. The debate around birth trauma Since that press conference, other experts working for Letby's defence team have put forward another theory for Baby O's death. They say his liver injuries were the result of traumatic delivery at the time of Modi says this was a "highly plausible cause".But that has been contested from a surprising direction. Dr Mike Hall, a neonatologist, was Lucy Letby's original defence expert and attended court throughout her trial. He has been a staunch critic of her conviction, arguing her trial wasn't fair and that there is no definitive medical evidence that babies were deliberately harmed. However, Dr Hall's view is that evidence for the birth trauma theory is simply not there. He notes that Baby O was born in good condition by caesarean section and there is no record of a traumatic delivery in the baby's medical notes."There's still no evidence that anyone did anything deliberately to harm Baby O," he adds. "However, something was going on with Baby O, which we haven't explained."We don't know what the cause of this is. But that doesn't mean that we therefore have to pretend that we know." The insulin evidence For the jury, Baby O was one of the clearest cases that proved Letby was a killer. And yet there appears to be flawed expert evidence on both were two other cases where the jury returned unanimous verdicts – the cases of Babies F and L. The prosecution argued that both babies had been poisoned with insulin and highlighted blood tests that it said were clear evidence of this. For the prosecution, the insulin cases proved that someone at the Countess of Chester Hospital was harming defence have, meanwhile, marshalled numerous arguments against the insulin theory. One is that the blood test used - an immunoassay - is inaccurate and should have been verified. But even Letby's experts accept the test is accurate around 98% of the time. Another argument is that premature babies can process insulin differently and that the blood test results are "within the expected range for pre-term infants". But the medical specialists we've spoken to are baffled by this claim and say it goes against mainstream scientific understanding. Of course, mainstream opinion can be wrong. But it is difficult to tell because Letby's defence team have not shared the scientific of the experts behind the report – a mechanical engineer who carries out biomedical research – clarified that his analysis says the blood test results were "not uncommon". However, Letby's defence declined to show the BBC the published studies that support this again, the claims of both the prosecution and defence are not the question of whether Letby's case should be re-examined by the Court of Appeal now lies with CCRC. They have the task of studying Mark McDonald's expert he is successful and Lucy Letby's case is referred back to the Court of Appeal - that is ultimately where the expert evidence on both sides will face a true image credit: Cheshire Constabulary, PA BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
