Triple murderer's life sentence reviewed in court
Date: 10:35 BST
Title: Luton judge's reasons for not imposing a whole-life order
Content: The Court of Appeal hearing will be presided over by the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Wall and it is due to begin at 10:30 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
They will consider whether the setting of the 49-year minimum term was correct, or whether a whole-life order should now be made.
Sentencing Prosper at Luton Crown Court in March, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said that a whole-life term could only be given to an 18 to 20-year-old if a court deemed "that the seriousness of the combination of offences is exceptionally high".
She stopped short of imposing a whole-life order in Prosper's case, as he was stopped from carrying out his planned school shooting, having murdered his family earlier than he intended after his mother woke up.
She continued that while he was "indisputably a very dangerous young man", the risk to the public was met with a life sentence.
She continued: "Despite the gravity of your crimes, it is the explicit joint submission of counsel that a lengthy, finite term will be a sufficiently severe penalty, and this is not such an exceptionally serious case of the utmost gravity where the sentence of last resort must be imposed on an offender who was 18 at the time and is 19 today."
Update:
Date: 10:33 BST
Title: What is a whole life order?
Content: Unlike a more usual life sentence that comes with a minimum time to serve in a prison before parole is considered, a whole life order (WLO) means you will never be released.
They are reserved for the most serious crimes, such as when multiple people have been killed with a significant degree of pre-meditation, or where one child is killed with similar pre-planning.
In 2022, the law was updated to allow 18 to 20-year-olds to receive the sentence, having been previously limited to those aged 21 or over.
However, those under 21 can only be given a WLO in cases deemed exceptionally serious even when compared to similar offences committed by older offenders.
If Prosper is given a WLO he would become the youngest offender to receive one.
Update:
Date: 10:26 BST
Title: Watch: Live stream from the Court of Appeal
Content: You can watch live-streamed footage from the Court of Appeal by clicking on the "Watch live" button at the top of this page.
Proceedings are due to start at 10:30, but there may be delays.
Update:
Date: 10:18 BST
Title: Why is Prosper back in court?
Content: The three family members were killed at the Leabank tower block in the north of Luton
Judges can impose whole life orders (WLOs) in the most serious cases of murder, meaning the offender will never be released.
Because Prosper did not complete his planned school shooting and was only 18 when the crime was committed, the judge decided against a WLO, citing his autism, young age and lack of previous convictions.
After receiving multiple requests under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, Solicitor General Lucy Rigby KC referred the case to the Court of Appeal.
At the time a spokesperson for the Attorney General's Office said Prosper "ought to have been given a whole-life order".
Update:
Date: 10:08 BST
Title: A reminder of Nicholas Prosper's crimes
Content: In March, Nicholas Prosper, 19, was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum term of 49 years after admitting murdering his mother, Juliana Falcon, 48, his sister Giselle, 13, and his brother Kyle, 16, at their flat in the Leabank tower block Luton in September 2024.
He had shot his mother and sister before stabbing his brother more than 100 times.
The then 18-year-old had been plotting a shooting at his former primary school, but his plans were disrupted after the noise of killing his family led to a neighbour calling the police.
Prosper had attempted to flee but eventually handed himself in by alerting a passing police car.
Update:
Date: 10:02 BST
Title: Welcome to our live updates page
Content: (left to right) Juliana Falcon, Kyle Prosper and Giselle Prosper were found dead at their home in the Marsh Farm area of Luton in September
Good morning and welcome to our live updates page which will have coverage from the Court of Appeal, where judges are reviewing the sentence given of triple murderer Nicholas Prosper.
The 19-year-old was jailed for life with a minimum term of 49 years for murdering three members of his family - his mother, Juliana Falconer, 48, his brother Kyle Prosper, 16, and his sister Giselle Prosper, 13.
It will be debated in court if Prosper should have received a whole-life order, meaning he could never be released.
The hearing, at the Royal Courts of Justice on The Strand in central London, is due to begin at 10:30.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Ryanair is forced to apologise after telling widow her dead husband would have to apply for £827 refund
A widow was left in tears when Ryanair refused to refund her dead husband's £827 flights - telling her he needed to complain from beyond the grave. Yvonne Shields' husband Colin Shields booked his flights to Venice, Italy, last year and was meant to fly out in September to represent Scotland at a powerchair football match. Colin was tetraplegic after he had an accident 14 years ago and needed two essential carers to accompany him on the flight, whose tickets he paid for. But when Colin tragically passed away due to brain bleed in April 2025, Yvonne contacted Ryanair customer support to notify them and request a refund. The 44-year-old said she was told she could not get a refund for the carers' tickets as it was against Ryanair's policy despite Colin having paid for them. She was promised a refund of only £258 for his ticket but claims she has not even received that either, adding: 'It's so upsetting and trivial.' When Yvonne got back in touch to chase the refund, she was reportedly told they could not disclose any information unless they speak to the original booker - despite being informed the 'booker is dead'. The mother said she even provided Ryanair with Colin's death certificate and proof that she is the will executor, but they still refused to speak with her and ended the chat. Ryanair have since apologised for the ordeal and said that she was 'regrettably incorrectly advised wrongly' by their customer service agent. Yvonne, from Glasgow, Scotland, explained: 'They said there's nothing else we can help you with and ended the chat.' She said the lack of empathy and understanding from Ryanair is frustrating and caused her to burst into tears. The mother-of-two said it is a lot for her to deal with while also handling grief and feels like she is 'bashing her head on a brick wall.' Yvonne added: 'I burst into tears because I have quite a lot to deal with right now since Colin passed. It's a lot. 'It's not like you're getting this clean slate to start again. I constantly have to deal with things. 'I've got two kids as well, 14 and 17, and it's dealing with their emotions as well. 'The fact they're not even giving me the money back is infuriating. It's like bashing your head on a brick wall. They're trying to speak to someone that isn't here, it's an unreasonable request. 'It's frustrating, it's devastating, you feel like you're nothing. We've dealt with so much because of his disability. Things are always that little bit tougher, harder.' Colin was paralysed from the chest down after an accident in 2010 and developed a condition called autonomic dysreflexia, which meant his blood pressure could soar and cause a stroke if not treated - which is what led to his brain bleed. Yvonne said: 'Colin had an accident 14 years ago, a month before our youngest was born. It's just constant battling and I feel tired, I feel drained, sometimes I want to just ignore it but my sister says 'you're not ignoring this, they stole from you.' 'It's the lack of empathy, lack of understanding, it's not a bog-standard person going on a flight, it's a disabled person. 'If you had a family member who died, surely you would think it's all cancelled.' A Ryanair spokesperson said: 'Mr Shields was due to travel from Edinburgh to Venice on September 16, 2025, but passed away prior to this flight. 'Mrs Shields attempted to submit a refund request on April 26 and was advised to submit a death certificate and proof of executorship. 'On June 30, Mrs Shields was informed that a refund (£257.58) was issued and was regrettably incorrectly advised by a customer service agent who wrongly believed that the other two passengers on the booking were not entitled to a refund. 'Our Customer Service Department would be happy to further assist this passenger to correct this customer service agent's error and assist this passenger with their refund.' Ryanair admitted the customer service agent also incorrectly informed Yvonne that the refund of £257.58 would be sent to her husband's Ryanair wallet, instead of the card used to pay for the booking.
The Guardian
2 minutes ago
- The Guardian
DoJ drops cases against LA protesters after officers caught making false claims
US immigration officers made false and misleading statements in their reports about several Los Angeles protesters they arrested during the massive demonstrations that rocked the city in June, according to federal law enforcement files obtained by the Guardian. The officers' testimony was cited in at least five cases filed by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) amid the unrest. The DoJ has charged at least 26 people with 'assaulting' and 'impeding' federal officers and other crimes during the protests over immigration raids. Prosecutors, however, have since been forced to dismiss at least eight of those felonies, many of them which relied on officers' inaccurate reports, court records show. The DoJ has also dismissed at least three felony assault cases it brought against Angelenos accused of interfering with arrests during recent immigration raids, the documents show. The rapid felony dismissals are a major embarrassment for the Trump-appointed US attorney for southern California, Bill Essayli, and appeared to be the result of an unusual series of missteps by the DoJ, former federal prosecutors said. The Guardian's review of records found: Out of nine 'assault' and 'impeding' felony cases the DoJ filed immediately after the start of the protests and promoted by the attorney general, Pam Bondi, prosecutors dismissed seven of them soon after filing the charges. In reports that led to the detention and prosecution of at least five demonstrators, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents made false statements about the sequence of events and misrepresented incidents captured on video. One DHS agent accused a protester of shoving an officer, when footage appeared to show the opposite: the officer forcefully pushed the protester. One indictment named the wrong defendant, a stunning error that has jeopardized one of the government's most high-profile cases. 'When I see felonies dismissed, that tells me either the federal officers have filed affidavits that are not truthful and that has been uncovered, or US attorneys reviewing the cases realize the evidence does not support the charges,' said Cristine Soto DeBerry, a former California state prosecutor who is now director of Prosecutors Alliance Action, a criminal justice reform group. She said officers often call for charges that prosecutors don't end up filing, but it was uncommon for the DoJ to file, then dismiss cases, especially numerous felonies in rapid succession. 'It seems this is a way to detain people, hold them in custody, instill fear and discourage people from exercising their first amendment rights,' DeBerry said. There are at least 18 cases brought by the DoJ against LA protesters that prosecutors have not dismissed, covering a wide array of alleged criminal conduct, according to case records the US attorney's office shared with the Guardian. In three of those cases, protesters have agreed to plea deals, including one defendant accused of spitting at an officer and another who allegedly threw rocks. Some still facing charges are accused of throwing bottles and molotov cocktails, pointing a laser at a helicopter and aiding in civil disorder by distributing gas masks. In six of the felony dismissals reviewed by the Guardian, the DoJ has re-filed lower-level misdemeanors against the defendants. For the many protesters whose charges were withdrawn or scaled back, the officers' initial allegations, as well as the DoJ's filings, have deeply impacted their lives. All the demonstrators who won dismissals spent time in jail before the government's cases against them fell apart. 'We are not the violent ones,' said Jose Mojica, one of the protesters whose assault case was dismissed, in an earlier Guardian interview. 'They are chasing down innocent people.' The DoJ's initial wave of cases stemmed from one of the first major protests in the LA region, a demonstration on 7 June in the south Los Angeles city of Paramount. Border patrol sightings had sparked fears that agents were targeting laborers at a Home Depot, and as dozens of locals and demonstrators gathered outside an office complex that houses DHS, officers fired teargas and flash-bang grenades while some protesters threw objects. The US attorney's office filed a joint case against five demonstrators, charging each with assaulting officers, a felony the DoJ warned could carry 20-year sentences. A criminal complaint, written by DHS and filed in court by the DoJ on 8 June, said that as the crowd grew, some protesters 'turned violent'. Two sisters, Ashley, 20, and Joceline Rodriguez, 26, began 'blocking' officers' vehicles, the complaint alleged. When a border patrol agent attempted to move Ashley, she 'resisted' and 'shoved the agent with both her hands', then Joceline 'grabbed the arm' of one of the agents to prevent her sister's arrest, the charges said. Both were arrested. In an investigative file, DHS suggested that 'in response' to the sisters' arrest, Christian Cerna-Camacho, another protester, began to 'verbally harass' agents, making threatening remarks. Demonstrator Brayan Ramos-Brito, then 'pushed [an] agent in the chest', DHS claimed, at which point, a fifth protester, Jose Mojica, 'used his body to physically shield' Ramos-Brito and then 'elbowed and pushed' agents. Agents then 'subdued' and arrested Mojica and Ramos-Brito, the complaint said. All five defendants are Latino US citizens. DHS's own subsequent reports, however, reveal multiple factual discrepancies in the narrative initially presented by officers and prosecutors. While the complaint suggested Cerna-Camacho, Ramos Brito and Mojica attacked agents in protest of the sisters' arrest, records show the women were arrested in a separate incident – which occurred after the men were detained. Border patrol agent Eduardo Mejorado, a key witness considered a victim of the assaults, appeared to initially give inaccurate testimony about the order of events. He 'clarified' the timeline when questioned, a DHS special agent wrote in a report three days after charges were filed. A supervisor on the scene also documented the correct chronology in a later report and 'apologized' for errors, saying, 'Due to the chaos of the events that day, some events may have been miscommunicated'. Mojica had outlined the discrepancies in an interview with the Guardian days after his arrest. The DHS special agent also noted that defense lawyers had presented video they said was 'in direct contrast to the facts' laid out in the initial complaint. The footage, seen by the Guardian, appeared to show an agent pushing Ramos-Brito, not the other way around, before he was taken to the ground along with Mojica, who was also not seen in the footage shoving or assaulting agents. The agent acknowledged the officer's shoving and said the subsequent 'fight' was 'hard to decipher'. The agent also claimed Ramos-Brito's behavior before he was pushed included 'pre-assault indicators', such as 'clenching fists' and 'getting in [the agent's] face'. Meanwhile, chaotic social media footage of the arrest of the sisters appeared to show an officer pushing Ashley, prompting her to briefly raise her hand, at which point two agents grabbed her and took her to the ground. Her older sister was then seen briefly touching the arm of one of the agents on top of her sister. Both appeared to be filming with their phones before their arrests, and it's unclear who DHS and the DoJ were alleging were the victims in their purported assaults. DHS records also show that one supervisor emailed a female border patrol agent seen in the video standing near the sisters, saying he was 'trying to tie that whole event together for prosecution' and looking into a 'rumor' Ashley 'may have shoved' this agent. The agent responded that she had told Ashley to move, but did not say she was shoved. Within two weeks of the initial charges, the US attorney's office filed motions to dismiss the cases against the sisters, Ramos-Brito and Mojica 'in the interest of justice', without providing further explanation. The DoJ then filed a new case against the sisters, this time accusing them each of a single misdemeanor, saying they 'assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, and interfered with' border patrol, but offering no detail. The sisters pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanors; Ashley's lawyer declined to comment and Joceline's attorney did not respond to inquiries. The DoJ also filed a misdemeanor indictment against Ramos-Brito, but then said it was erroneous and rescinded it, only to refile a misdemeanor in a different format. Ramos-Brito pleaded not guilty and his lawyer didn't respond to emails. Mojica, who spoke out about how he was injured during his arrest, has not been charged again. Essayli, the US attorney for LA, who is an ardent Trump supporter appointed this year, initially published mugshots of the defendants, but has not publicly acknowledged that he has since dismissed their felonies. Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesperson for Essayli, declined to comment on a detailed list of questions about specific cases. The LA Times reported last week that Essayli was heard 'screaming' at a prosecutor over a grand jury's refusal to indict one of the protesters. McEvoy said the LA Times story relied on 'factual inaccuracies and anonymous gossip', without offering specifics, adding in an email: 'Our office will continue working unapologetically to charge all those who assault our agents or impede our federal investigations.' Bondi defended Essayli in a statement, calling him a 'champion for law and order who has done superlative work to prosecute rioters for attacking and obstructing law enforcement in Los Angeles'. She added: 'This Department of Justice is proud of Bill, and he has my complete support as he continues working to protect Californians and Make America Safe Again.' Jaime Ruiz, a spokesperson for Customs and Border Protection, which oversees border patrol, did not respond to detailed questions about cases and officers' inaccurate testimony, saying the department is 'unable to comment on cases under active litigation'. 'DHS and its components continue to enforce the law every day in greater Los Angeles even in the face of danger,' he added. 'Our officers are facing a surge in assaults and attacks against them as they put their lives on the line to enforce our nation's laws. Secretary [Kristi] Noem has been clear: If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.' Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary, added in a statement: 'Our agents, officers, and prosecutors will continue to work together to keep Americans safe, and we will follow the facts, evidence, and law.' Mejorado, the border patrol agent, could not be reached. Cerna-Camacho is the only defendant of the five whose original charges are still pending, but when he showed up to court for his recent arraignment, the DoJ attorney was forced to admit his office had made an error: the one-paragraph indictment filed against Cerna-Camacho erroneously named Ramos Brito. Cerna-Camacho's lawyers have argued that the government's 30-day window to indict his client had passed, and the case must be dismissed. Cerna-Camacho pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer declined to comment. 'This is an extraordinary mistake and a dangerous embarrassment,' said Sergio Perez, a former DoJ lawyer who is now executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, a California-based legal advocacy group, about Cerna-Camacho's case. 'The US Department of Justice is supposed to be the pinnacle of professional and responsible criminal prosecutions. When you can't get the name right, it calls into question all other factual assertions in those documents. It's way beyond a clerical error. It's smoke where there is likely fire.' The case is a significant one for the Trump administration. Cerna-Camacho was arrested four days after the protest, when two unmarked vehicles rammed his car while his toddler and infant were inside, with officers deploying teargas. The incident caused outrage locally. But DHS aggressively defended the arrest, publishing a photo of Cerna-Camachobeing detained, and saying he had 'punched' a border patrol officer at the Paramount protests. Video from the protest showed Cerna-Camacho and an officer scuffling in a chaotic crowd, with Cerna-Camacho at one point raising his hand, but it's unclear if he made contact with the officer. In an initial complaint against Jacob Terrazas, DHS accused the man of felony assault, saying he was 'one of several individuals … actively throwing hard objects [at officers]' during the Paramount protests, without referencing specific evidence or details. Video of his arrest showed an officer slamming him to the ground, and at his arraignment, Terrazas appeared badly concussed, and a judge ordered he immediately get medical attention. Terrazas was released after nine days in jail, then two days later, the DoJ moved to dismiss the case. However, prosecutors filed a new misdemeanor charge, accusing him of a 'simple assault' misdemeanor, saying he 'aided and abetted' others and 'forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, and interfered with' a border patrol employee, without providing details. Tarrazas has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer did not respond to inquiries. The government has also dismissed its 'conspiracy to impede an officer' felony charges against Gisselle Medina, but then filed an 'accessory' to 'assault' misdemeanor, claiming in a brief charging document that she had 'assisted the offenders'. The charges did not offer any details on how she allegedly assisted others. Medina has not yet been arraigned and her lawyer did not respond to inquiries. The DoJ also recently dismissed felony assault charges against Russell Gomez Dzul, who had been stopped 7 June by border patrol when officers deemed him suspicious for appearing 'nervous' near them and biking away, but then filed a simple assault misdemeanor, without offering details. He has pleaded not guilty and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment. Andrea Velez, a US citizen arrested during a 24 June raid in downtown LA on her way to work, also had a felony assault charge dismissed this month, and has not faced further prosecution. One of the only cases from the first round of prosecutions that the government has not dropped is the one that made international headlines – the arrest of David Huerta, a prominent California union leader jailed while observing an immigration raid. Carley Palmer, a lawyer who served as a supervisor in the US attorney's office in LA until she left last year, said the dismissals and downgrading of charges likely occurred after more in-depth evaluation by line prosecutors and supervisors, and in some ways reflected 'the process working': 'We want prosecutors to feel they can reevaluate evidence and change their mind when new information comes to light.' Prosecutors might dismiss cases if a grand jury declines to indict, if they believe they can't persuade jurors at trial, or if they learn officers violated the defendants' rights, she added. The LA Times reported that Essayli has struggled to secure indictments at grand juries. Palmer, now an attorney at the Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg firm, said it was unusual, however, for the office to prosecute these kinds of 'he said she said' protest scuffles in the first place, taking away resources from traditional priorities, including fraud, economic crimes, public corruption and civil rights abuses. 'Federal charges are very serious and have real implications for people's lives,' Palmer added. 'Even if it gets dismissed, it will be on someone's record for the rest of their lives. It carries a lot of consequences, so you want prosecutors to understand and appreciate the power they have.'
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Female Army musician sacked for groping six soldiers
A 'predatory' female musician in the Coldstream Guards groped and propositioned six colleagues, a court martial heard. Lance Corporal Caitlyn Hawkins, 26, was dismissed from the British Army after she pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of four colleagues and committing disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind against two others. The clarinettist was handed an 18-month suspended sentence after a military court heard that she squeezed the genitals of a male colleague while 'staggering' back from a pub in London. Colonel Jim Carmichael, prosecuting, told Bulford Military Court that in May 2023, LCpl Hawkins left a pub in London 'heavily intoxicated' with three male colleagues. The court martial heard she walked up to one of her colleagues and moved her face close to his in an attempt to kiss him. Some time afterwards, LCpl Hawkins 'softly squeezed' his genitals for around two seconds. Col Carmichael said the male soldier was 'completely shocked' and said that for the rest of the journey to camp, she repeatedly put her hands on his crotch and buttocks. On that same walk home, she grabbed another one of the soldier's genitals without his consent for around one to two seconds before he pushed her hand away. She also touched the buttocks of another one of her male colleagues, who described her behaviour as 'inappropriate'. 'That's enough now' Another incident, which took place in June 2024, involved two female colleagues. One described that when she arrived at the pub, LCpl Hawkins was 'already quite drunk'. The court martial heard that after giving the woman a hug in greeting, LCpl Hawkins moved her hand onto the soldier's bottom, and then proceeded to 'stroke her back again and kissed her on the side of the neck'. She asked her colleague, 'Would your boyfriend mind if I kissed you right now?' In response, her victim said: 'That's enough now', and LCpl Hawkins left to go to the toilet. Later that night, at a different pub, LCpl Hawkins again started to touch the same colleague, 'squeezed her bottom' and cupped her vagina over her clothing. On that same night, LCpl Hawkins tried to touch the breasts of another female colleague before undoing her bra over her clothing. She was told to stop and moved away. Later on, in the toilet at the pub, LCpl Hawkins told the colleague, 'it's really annoying that you are straight and this attractive - do you not want to try it?' Col Carmichael told the court martial that LCpl Hawkins then put her hands on the woman's breasts and tried to kiss her. The court martial heard of a sixth victim, who said that between June and October of 2023, LCpl Hawkins had assaulted her on four occasions while The victim said on one occasion, LCpl Hawkins stood beside the woman and put her hand down her trousers, making 'skin to skin' contact. 'Willingness to treat them disgracefully' Chris Cannon, mitigating, told the court that LCpl Hawkins had no previous convictions and had been described as a 'model soldier' in character references. LCpl Hawkins apologised and said she 'deeply regrets' her actions. She pleaded guilty to seven charges of sexual assault and two charges of disgraceful conduct of an indecent kind at an earlier hearing. She was handed an 18-month suspended sentence and dismissed from the Army. LCpl Hawkins must also carry out 240 hours of unpaid work and 35 rehabilitation activity days. Judge Atwill said many of LCpl Hawkins's victims 'felt disempowered by your predatory behaviour' and were upset by her 'willingness to treat them disgracefully'.
