Brit arrested at airport after staff notice 'strong smell' coming from his luggage
A 27-year-old Brit was detained by police at an airport in Spain's Canary Islands after staff detected a peculiar odour emanating from his luggage.
During a routine check at Lanzarote Airport's Terminal 2, which services internal flights within the island group, customs officials discovered the unusually light yet malodorous suitcase.
The Guardia Civil of Spain swiftly located the owner of the bag, a British man intending to fly to Tenerife South Airport, the main transport hub of the islands. Given their experience with such matters, customs officers decided to inspect the contents of the suitcase in the presence of the Brit, suspecting he might be carrying illicit substances.
While packing your 100ml liquids into a bag is typically a good way to speed your way through security, inside this Brits luggage, they located four black vacuum-sealed bags, weighing a total of four kilos, that brought his journey to an abrupt end.
Inside the 27-year-old's bags, they uncovered a substantial quantity of trimmed cannabis buds, estimated to have a street value of around €7,260, or £6300, in the Canary Islands.
The incident occurred on Monday, June 29, but details about the arrest were only made public by Spanish authorities two weeks later on July 14. The identity of the man has not been disclosed.
The Guardia Civil apprehended the British chap along with his substantial stash of cannabis, a Class B drug in the UK.
However, Spain's laws differ, where the substance is legal for recreational use, and individuals are even permitted to cultivate a small quantity for personal consumption.
Nonetheless, the distribution and sale of cannabis are still prohibited nationwide.
Consequently, the Briton now stands accused of public health offences and will be presented before the Court of Instruction in Arrecife for trial.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
24 minutes ago
- Metro
Why was a superinjunction put on the Afghan evacuation story and what did it do?
On Tuesday, it was revealed for the first time that the British Government had used a superinjunction to keep a secret from the public. The term 'superinjunction' may be familiar to people who paid attention to the news in the 2010s, thanks to their deployment by several high-profile figures who wanted to stop people reading about their private lives. It is a court order a step above an injunction, which is used to stop details of the case being published in public. In a case with a superinjunction, not even the existence of the injunction can be made public. These orders are powerful enough when used by an individual. The use of one by the government to keep the entire UK in the dark is unprecedented. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money was spent without the public's knowledge, to bring a large number of individuals to the UK from Afghanistan without anyone being allowed to learn why. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. It all stemmed from an accidental data breach in February 2022, which exposed the personal details of more than 18,000 Afghans who had assisted British forces in their fight against the Taliban. When the government learned about this breach 18 months after it happened, then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace requested an injunction in the courts. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The reason for this, according to court documents, was to 'preserve the confidentiality of the personal information for as long as possible in order that His Majesty's Government may do everything it reasonably can to help those who might have been put at further risk by the data compromise'. But when the time came for the injunction to be placed, Judge Robin Knowles decided to go a step further. More Trending He wrote: 'I conclude that it is an environment of no publication that best protects lives, although again the matter must and will be kept under constant review.' This decision was made for eight reasons listed in the judgement: 'The risk in question is to the lives of many individuals and their families, and of torture.' The confidentiality of the data was not completely lost, though it had been breached. The order would create a period of time where the data compromise is 'not known or widely known'. It would be less likely for the information to fall into the wrong hands during that period. The period would provide an opportunity for the government to do 'everything it reasonably can' to help those at risk. The impact on freedom of expression was 'justified in the particular and exceptional circumstances of this case'. The fact the injunction would probably no longer be needed at some point and be lifted would limit that impact. The operation and duration of the injunction would be kept under close review. This order was so stringent, then-shadow Defence Secretary John Healey did not tell his party leader about the situation when he was briefed before last year's election. Instead, Sir Keir Starmer learned about it after he became Prime Minister. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: What changes in ISAs could mean for you and where you should invest MORE: Middle class parties hit by lumpy skin disease MORE: What changes to mortgages for first-time buyers means for you
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Ghislaine Maxwell's family break silence blasting Trump's decision to close Epstein case
The siblings of the convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell launched a blistering attack on the Trump administration's decision to end the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein The family of disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell has said new evidence, such as "government misconduct", could be used to challenge her imprisonment. The siblings of the convicted sex trafficker also launched a blistering attack on the Trump administration's decision to end the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell's family have condemned what they describe as a miscarriage of justice and accused the US government of breaking its word. It came as Donald Trump, continued to show growing frustration with questions about the paedophile's files, shaking his head when asked why his supporters in particular 'have been so interested [in the case] and so upset with how it's been handled'. Trump said: 'He's dead for a long time. He was never a big factor in terms of life. I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody." He hit out as Maxwell's family issued a strongly worded statement, saying she was denied a fair trial and vowed to take fresh legal action in the US courts based on alleged government misconduct. Their remarks come just days after the Department of Justice announced that it was closing its inquiry into Epstein's network, a move that has sparked fury among campaigners and reignited claims of political interference. The backlash is so great that even Trump's loyal MAGA base has begun turning on the president after his Attorney General Pam Bondi previously vowed to make all the Epstein files public. 'Our sister Ghislaine did not receive a fair trial,' the family said. 'Her legal team continues to fight her case in the Courts and will file its reply in short order to the Government's opposition in the US Supreme Court. If necessary, in due course they will also file a writ of habeas corpus in the US District Court, SDNY. This allows her to challenge her imprisonment on the basis of new evidence such as government misconduct that would have likely changed the trial's outcome.' Maxwell, 63, is currently serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison after being convicted in 2021 of procuring underage girls for Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender who was found dead in his jail cell in August 2019. Her lawyers have petitioned the US Supreme Court to overturn the conviction, claiming the prosecution reneged on an immunity deal allegedly offered to Epstein and his associates two decades ago. David Oscar Markus, lead counsel for Maxwell in her Supreme Court appeal, took aim at former President Donald Trump, whose administration's legal representatives have continued to oppose the appeal, even after his return to the White House earlier this year. 'I'd be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal,' Markus said. 'He's the ultimate dealmaker, and I'm sure he'd agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it. With all the talk about who's being prosecuted and who isn't, it's especially unfair that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the US government made and broke.' Her family said they 'profoundly concur' with Markus's comments, marking their most direct rebuke yet of the US government's handling of the case. The statement is likely to inflame controversy over the perceived double standards in the justice system, particularly in light of the DOJ's decision to terminate its Epstein probe despite ongoing speculation about the wider network of individuals involved. Maxwell has always maintained her innocence and claims she is being scapegoated for Epstein's crimes. Her supporters argue that the case against her was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct and politically motivated pressure to secure a high-profile conviction after Epstein's death. US legal analysts say the likelihood of the Supreme Court hearing the case remains slim, but Maxwell's team has indicated they will pursue all available avenues, including a habeas corpus motion, to challenge her incarceration. The Department of Justice has yet to respond to the family's latest claims. Her lawyer's statement has also fuelled Trump's fears that she may speak out. Last week, the Mirror revealed how the president has been left panicked that Maxwell may break her silence and reveal details of his past ties to Epstein. Trump was a long-time associate of Epstein and Maxwell and was famously videotaped at a party discussing the appearance of young girls who were present during a conversation with the late paedophile. During his first term in the White House, he was concerned by a US newspaper story in July 2020 about her arrest. It quoted a friend of Epstein as describing Maxwell as believing herself to be "protected by the intelligence communities she and [Epstein] helped with information ... by Prince Andrew, President Clinton and even by President Trump," whom they described as having been "well-known to be an acquaintance of her and Epstein's". According to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman's book about Trump, Confidence Man, the US leader tackled his advisers about the story at an Oval Office meeting. "You see that article in the Post today that mentioned me?" he asked aides. When they didn't react, Trump pressed them further, asking: "She say anything about me?" Maxwell, 63, Oxford-educated and the daughter of crooked tycoon Robert Maxwell, was once a fixture in the same Palm Beach and New York elite circles as Trump. The president has acknowledged knowing her for years, and the pair were frequently seen together at high society events in the 1990s and 2000s. When Maxwell was first arrested, Trump's response raised eyebrows. "I just wish her well," he said during a White House briefing. "I've met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, and I guess they [Maxwell and Epstein] lived in Palm Beach," he added. "But I wish her well, whatever it is." The remarks had many questioning just how deep their connection ran. The FBI's decision to end its Epstein probe came as Attorney General Pam Bondi, appointed by the president, faces growing scrutiny over contradictory statements she has made about the case. In February, she confirmed the existence of a non-public list of Epstein's alleged clients, saying there were "tens of thousands of videos and documents" still held by the FBI, some of which allegedly showed "horrific crimes involving minors." However, last week, Trump's US Department of Justice stated that it had concluded its review and had "no further information" to share with the public. The abrupt reversal prompted questions for the White House. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended Bondi, saying: "She was referring to the entirety of all of the paperwork, all of the paper, in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes… and I'll let her speak to that." The contradiction intensified criticism that the Trump administration has failed Epstein's victims, many of whom have accused the justice system of protecting the powerful while offering only one conviction.
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Man arrested in connection with the death of 114-year-old marathon runner
Police in India have arrested a man in connection with the death of Fauja Singh, the 114-year-old British runner, who died in a hit-and-run accident on Monday. Singh is believed to have been the oldest person to ever complete a marathon and did not even begin running until he was 89. He was hit by a car while crossing a road near his birth village of Beas Pind in Punjab earier this week and suffered severe head injuries. He was taken to hospital but died soon after. Local media organisation NDTV reported a 26-year-old man had been arrested under suspicion of driving the Toyota Frontrunner that hit Mr Singh. The outlet named him as Amritpal Singh Dhillon, a Canadian resident who was visiting his home region of Punjab at the time of the accident. There has been an outpouring of tributes from both India and the UK for Mr Singh since his death was announced on Tuesday. India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid tribute to Mr Singh, saying he was 'extraordinary because of his unique persona and the manner in which he inspired the youth of India on a very important topic of fitness.' 'He was an exceptional athlete with incredible determination,' Modi said. 'Pained by his passing away. My thoughts are with his family and countless admirers around the world.' Preet Kaur Gill MP said on X: 'Saddened to hear about the passing of Fauja Singh. 'I had the honour of meeting him. A truly inspiring man. His discipline, simple living, and deep humility left a lasting mark on me. 'A reminder that age is just a number, but attitude is everything. Rest in power, legend.' Singh became the oldest man to run a full marathon in 2011 at the age of 100 in Toronto. His accomplishment was not recognised by Guinness World Records because he did not have a birth certificate to prove his age. Singh had a British passport that showed his date of birth as April 1, 1911, while a letter from Indian government officials stated that birth records were not kept in 1911. Singh took up running at the age of 89 as a way to get over depression after his wife and son died in quick succession in India. He went to live with his youngest son in London. That's where sports enthusiast Singh attended tournaments organised by the Sikh community and took part in sprints. He met some Sikh marathon runners who encouraged him to take up long-distance running. One day, he saw a marathon on television for the first time and decided that's what he wanted to do. At the age of 89 in 2000, he ran the London Marathon, his first, and went on to do eight more. His best time was 5 hours and 40 minutes at the 2003 Toronto Marathon 'From a tragedy has come a lot of success and happiness,' Singh, who was a torchbearer for the 2012 London Olympics, said.
