Tate brothers will return to UK to face charges after Romanian legal proceedings, lawyers say
LONDON, May 30 (Reuters) - Internet personality Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan will return to Britain to face criminal charges once separate legal proceedings in Romania have been concluded, a lawyer for the siblings said.
Britain's Crown Prosecution Service confirmed earlier this week that it had previously authorised charges against the brothers including rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking.
The Tates are facing a separate criminal investigation in Romania over trafficking allegations, and the courts there have already approved their extradition to the UK.
The brothers have denied all the allegations.
"Once those proceedings are concluded in their entirety then The Tates will return to face UK allegations," Holborn Adams, the law firm representing the brothers, said in a statement on Thursday.
Andrew Tate, a self-described misogynist who has gained millions of fans by promoting an ultra-masculine lifestyle, separately faces a civil lawsuit in Britain, which has been brought by four women and is due to go to trial in 2027.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Duke of Sussex ‘asked Diana's brother if he should change his family name to Spencer'
Prince Harry asked Princess Diana's brother about changing his family name to Spencer, according to reports. During a rare visit to Britain, Prince Harry is said to have sought advice from his uncle Earl Spencer, about whether to assume his mother's surname. It would have meant dropping his current family name, Mountbatten-Windsor, which is used by his children, Prince Archie, six, and Princess Lilibet, three. The Duke, 40, was advised against the move by the Earl, 61, because of the legal hurdles, according to the Mail on Sunday. 'They had a very amicable conversation and Spencer advised him against taking such a step', a friend of the Duke told the newspaper. Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname available to descendants of the late Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip. It combines the British Royal family's House name of Windsor and Prince Philip's adopted surname of Mountbatten. The Duke's apparent desire to abandon the name speaks to the growing rift with his family. An interview with the BBC last month, in which he made a series of comments about the Royal family, is understood to have deepened the divide between Buckingham Palace and the Duke and his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. On their birth certificates, the couple's children are Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor and Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor. However, it was revealed last year, they had started using 'Sussex' as the official surname for their children. The Royal family name of Windsor was confirmed by Queen Elizabeth II following her accession to the throne in 1952. But in 1960, the late Queen and then Duke of Edinburgh elected for their direct descendants to carry the name Mountbatten-Windsor. This meant that when the Queen's children needed to declare a surname, it would be Mountbatten-Windsor. Mountbatten-Windsor first appeared on an official document on Nov 14 1973 upon the marriage of the Princess Royal and Captain Mark Phillips.
The Sun
44 minutes ago
- The Sun
Arsenal finally ready to complete striker transfer with England U17 star lined up for £1m move to Emirates
ARSENAL are finally ready to sign a No 9 — England youth striker Igor Tyjon. The Gunners want to strike a deal with Blackburn Rovers for the 17-year-old, who has already made two substitute appearances in the Championship. 2 2 Emirates chiefs are willing to pay over £1million up front, with additional fees tied to future appearances. However, Blackburn are expected to demand as much as possible for one of their prized academy assets. Manchester United showed interest in Tyjon a year ago, but the teenager — who is also eligible to represent Poland — was happy to stay at Ewood Park and fight for a place in the first team. Arsenal may be harder to resist given their strong track record of promoting young talent. In other academy news, Raheem Sterling's eight-year-old son Thiago, has joined Arsenal- just as his father's loan spell from Chelsea comes to an end. News of Thiago's move to the Gunners' academy was shared by Sterling's long-term partner Paige Milian, to her 100,000 Instagram followers. She posted: ' The journey doesn't stop here, let's go.' Among the pictures she shared were shots of Thiago holding up an Arsenal shirt alongside his six-year-old brother, Thai. One caption read: ' Beyond proud of my first-born son Thiago for signing with Arsenal Academy's U9s.' Meanwhile, Mikel Arteta's side ran out of steam in the Premier League title race with Liverpool emerging as champions. And despite convincingly beating Real Madrid they fell short against eventual winners PSG in the Champions League. The lack of a true out-and-out striker has been a major topic of discussion among the Arsenal fanbase and the club is expected to make a big-name signing this summer. They have been strongly linked with RB Leipzig's Benjamin Sesko and Sporting CP's Viktor Gyokeres.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Will Starmer's defence review actually solve any problems?
After months of behind the scenes wrangling, the government's long-awaited strategic defence review (SDR) is finally set to be published on Monday. The flagship review, which was promised by Sir Keir Starmer immediately after assuming office, is intended to address the 'true state of the armed forces' – and the money available to spend on it. Whenever ministers have faced questions over Britain's ailing military in the past few months, they have pointed to the SDR as a fix-all remedy. But when the review is published on Monday – and inevitably pored over by defence experts, journalists and MPs – there will no longer be anywhere for the government to hide. The key question hanging over the review is whether or not it will be ambitious enough to address the problem at hand – Britain's armed forces have been chronically underfunded for years. Troop numbers are down and ageing equipment is in a bad state. Meanwhile, it is being published in an increasingly fraught landscape for global defence. Pressure on Britain and the rest of Europe to ramp up their defence spending has been rapidly increasing since the election of Donald Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to pull out of Nato if Europe does not pull its weight. While the Nato defence spending target is 2 per cent of GDP – a benchmark that a number of European nations fall short of – Trump has gone so far as to suggest that US allies should be spending 5 per cent, amid mounting global threats from Russia, China and Iran. Britain has already set out plans to reach 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 and on Friday, defence secretary John Healey went even further, committing to spending 3 per cent by 2034. Although it sends a strong signal of ambition ahead of Monday's review, the near decade it will take us to get there shouldn't be overlooked. In the meantime, Britain will be lagging behind Baltic states like Estonia, Poland and Finland. While it is an encouraging start, the resounding response is that the UK must move faster if it wants to remedy the hollowing out of the armed forces that has occurred after years of chronic underfunding. In April 2024, the army fell below its recruitment target for the first time since it was set, with personnel numbers at the lowest level since the Napoleonic wars, at around 73,000 troops – down from 110,000 in 2010. A commitment to increase troop numbers is likely to feature in the SDR, but the problem won't be fixed overnight. There is a major cultural issue with recruitment and retention in the armed forces: MoD figures from June 2024 revealed that more than 15,000 personnel quit in the 12 months previous, while just over 11,000 signed up. The government's suggestion of putting peacekeeping troops in Ukraine is only adding to this pressure, with former head of the British Army Richard Dannatt last year warning that the UK simply doesn't have the numbers or the equipment to make this plan viable. Spelling out the scale of the problem at a Royal United Services Institute conference in December, defence minister Al Carns – a former special forces soldier – admitted that the whole army could be dissipated within a year if it was dragged into a conflict similar in scale to the Ukraine war. After years of chronic underfunding, Monday's report will be a difficult read. It's unsurprising, therefore, that the process of drafting it has not been plain sailing. When Lord Robertson – one of the people tasked with leading the review – slapped a version on Healey's desk in December, one source said he was told to go away and 'give it another go'. By February the review is understood to have already been on its fifth draft, and nobody seemed happy with it. Every time it landed back on MoD desks, it was met with horror at the scale of the holes in Britain's armed forces. It was hoped the review would be able to highlight issues and propose viable solutions. But the further along it got, the more it made for depressing reading, sparking growing concern from figures inside the MoD that it could actually cause more problems for the government than it solved. Just days out from the review's publication, defence sources said the final details were still being ironed out. To make matters worse for Healey, Starmer's dash to get his beleaguered Chagos deal over the line meant the treaty was signed just two weeks before the review's publication - raising questions over how much of the defence budget would be swallowed up by the agreement. According to conservative estimates from the government, the deal will cost £101m annually, split between the Foreign Office and the MoD. But just two weeks out from the review's pubication, there was still some toeing and froing over which department would foot the bill. How the cost would be shared, ministers couldn't say. A few big ticket commitments have also been briefed out to the media ahead of Monday's publication. Britain is looking purchase fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons, a move that would be the biggest expansion of the nuclear deterrent since the Cold War. While £1.5bn will be spent on building six new munitions factories. These pledges - like the 2034 deadline for hitting 3 per cent on defence spending - send the right signal: an acknowledgement that Britain is facing the most treacherous period since the Cold War. But this will need to be echoed across the report as a whole, rather than displayed in just a few headline pledges. And the nine-year time lag before we hit the 3 per cent target doesn't convey the sense of urgency that many had hoped the review itself would. The main purpose of the SDR is to provide solutions to the problem of Britain's ailing military. Certainly, it is meant to answer more questions than it poses. But with the global landscape becoming increasingly treacherous, and with the government dragging its heels on defence spending, there is a high chance Monday's publication will only bring more questions over how the UK defends itself in an increasingly unstable world.
