Ex-Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson and Derek Hatton face bribery charges in court
The former Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson and ex-Labour councillor Derek Hatton have appeared in court facing charges of bribery and misconduct in a public office.
Anderson, 67, was one of 12 people charged as part of Operation Aloft, launched by police to look into the awarding of commercial and business contracts from Liverpool city council between 2010 and 2020.
Anderson appeared at Preston magistrates court on Friday and indicated not guilty pleas to charges of bribery, misconduct in a public office and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.
On the misconduct charge, he is said to have sent and/or arranged to have sent 'threatening letters' to himself.
Anderson, a former social worker from Knotty Ash in Liverpool, was elected mayor from the time the role was created in 2012 until 2021.
His son David Anderson, 37, of Wavertree, faces a charge of conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office, which he denies.
Hatton, 77, was the deputy leader of Liverpool city council in the 1980s and part of Labour's militant faction. Appearing in court he denied one count of bribery and one count of counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office.
Before he confirmed his name, age and address, Judge Lloyd asked Hatton not to chew in court.
Hatton's wife, Sonjia Hatton, 49, of Aigburth, indicated a not guilty plea to one count of misconduct in a public office by providing and seeking confidential council information over matters of commercial and business use to Hatton's contacts and to his business dealings.
Andrew Barr, 51, formerly the council's assistant director of highways and planning, of Ainsdale, Merseyside, is charged with conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office and also a charge of bribery for which he indicated a not guilty plea.
Adam McClean, 54, of Woolton, entered the dock on a charge of conspiracy to bribery, to which he entered no plea.
Other defendants appeared at court remotely via video link.
The council's former head of regeneration Nick Kavanagh, 56, of Mossley Hill, indicated not guilty pleas to two counts of bribery. Phillipa Cook, 49, of the same address, indicated not guilty pleas to two counts of bribery.
Alexander Croft, 30, of Aughton, Lancashire, indicated a not guilty plea to one count of bribery.
Julian Flanagan, 53, of Knowsley; Paul Flanagan, 61, of Knowsley; and James Shalliker, 38, of Downholland, Lancashire, are all charged with conspiracy to commit bribery and entered no pleas.
All 12 defendants were granted unconditional bail before a plea and trial preparation hearing at Preston crown court on 25 April.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Rachel Reeves needs to go back to school - her spending review doesn't add up'
There are two things I learned in maths at school: the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square on the other two sides, and how to write my name in numerals on a calculator. You may think that's not much to show for 11 years of effort in trying to put numbers into a brain that only ate words. But knowing how triangles work is a damned useful thing when looking at the world and working out where it's gone wrong. And the more I see of her, the more it looks like Rachel Reeves' triangle expertise starts and ends with knowing it'll go 'ting' if you hit it with a teaspoon. For those who read only headlines, the first Chancellor to not have the same colour hair from one day to the next has announced £113bn of investment, building back what's been destroyed, restoring people's faith in Labour, and blah de blah blah. Few headlines have reported the Tory view, but that's understandable: it's hard to hear what they say when people have their head that far up their own rancid fundament. At this point a columnist might attempt to pick apart a Chancellor's sums, perhaps quote a great economist. But to me Keynes is what you call interns from Buckinghamshire, and my calculator always seems to spell 315005. The brutal truth is she hasn't bothered with any sums. She's just drawn a lovely picture of an inexplicable future, and she might as well have told us there'd be marmalade custard and sausage ice cream too. A chancellor's spending review doesn't have the same restraints as a Budget, so she's managed to get away with the fiscal equivalent of an architect's drawing of how the town centre will look after it's pedestrianised, all springtime pavement cafes and leafy trees and children playing. But in reality, it's still West Bromwich, the business died for lack of traffic, and everyone grew up living too close to the paint factory. So when Rachel's sunny little plan says HM Revenue and Customs will save 13.1% of its budget through "AI and automation", what will happen is that even less effort will be made to go after tax dodgers, and the process of small business owners and the self-employed getting shafted annually will be commentated by a chatbot. The sort of blithely dysfunctional customer service that will leave you actually pining for a keypad options menu, and a recipe for cock-ups. Rachel said departmental budgets will grow by an average of 2.3%, aside from all those which will be cut. The NHS will get an extra £29billion, and she'll promptly take a chunk back in employer National Insurance contributions for 1.3m staff, which she'll then say she's 'reinvesting' in the NHS. Even spotting some of that cash as it whizzes around in theoretical space and time will be like trying to catch a quark in your hands in the Large Hadron Collider. Then she had the brass neck to call it "a record cash investment in our NHS, increasing real-terms, day-to-day spending by 3%". Except under Tony Blair it increased by £60bn, over the entire lifetime of the NHS it's been 4% a year, and in those days we could actually see it. No mention of dentists, not a sniff of social care. Defence spending has squeaked up merely by changing what you count as 'defence', and is already too low for what the rest of NATO wants. Disabled people rendered more disabled, and less able to work, by a programme of punishing them into work rather than giving bosses an incentive to hire them. A huge £39bn for 'affordable' housing that probably won't be, with a construction industry 250,000 people short of actually being able to build them. A u-turn on winter fuel payments because of a changed economic outlook when the economic outlook has actually got worse. And hooray, a triumph for the Mirror's campaign to extend free school meals to every family on Universal Credit. Except - have you seen a school meal recently? We're talking damp pizza, cold gravy, the cheapest of miserable chickens that even Donald Trump would feel guilty about selling to us. All this hoo-hah about how a hot meal improves learning and life chances, and nary a thought about how reheated, reformed offcuts from the cheapest bidder for the off-site catering contract can possibly qualify as food. You'd get more nutrition from licking the playground. If it weren't so far beneath her, school catering could be Michelle Mone's next big wheeze. And the asylum seekers. The ones who can't work, because that right was taken away last time Labour were in power and saw votes in naked racism. The homeless who can't have social housing, because the Tories sold it all and Angela Rayner bought as much as she could. The people who get £49 a week to feed, heat, and clothe themselves, while living in 'hotels' six to a room or detention centres crawling with cockroaches, while the owners bill the taxpayer five star rates. Well, no more hotels for them! Can it be coincidence, I wonder, that on the same day it was announced rough sleeping would be decriminalised? No need to house them, and no need to sweep them up and put them in the jails we don't have. Heaven forfend anyone'd have a good idea, like allowing them to work and pay taxes, so they could house themselves, integrate, and everyone benefits. In Rachelworld, all the asylum seekers are going to just disappear - pouf - as the world plummets headfirst into climate crisis and authoritarianism. I can't even bear to discuss the environmental unfriendliness of nuclear waste, or the carbon footprint of a modular reactor and everything that goes into it. Suffice it to say, even Swampy might be converted to burn coal instead, and by the time that idea's toxic half-life has decayed to a bearable level we won't have those pavement cafes. The one good bit of news in the spending review is that we can all rejoice, for the only way Rachel could square all this is by locating and stripping the fabled magic money tree. But all she has to show for it is promises that don't add up, and won't be enough to save her from being a convenient firee for a Prime Minister who, not long from now, will want to blame someone else for the economy that tanked for two reasons he wouldn't admit. Now class, what do you get if you triangulate all the above, and add up the squares of Brexit and employers National Insurance contributions? 707. Put that upside down in your calculator and smoke it.
Graziadaily
27 minutes ago
- Graziadaily
A History Making Vote On Abortion Is Happening Next Week – This Is What You Need To Know
On Tuesday 17th June, MPs will face a historic vote on amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill that seek to decriminalise abortion. There are two different amendments on the cards, the NC20 amendment proposed by Labour MP Stella Creasy and the NC1 amendment proposed by fellow Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi. MPs will only vote on one of these amendments, depending on which has most support ahead of the vote on Tuesday. If either of the amendments are passed it will mark the biggest overhaul to abortion law for 50 years. As MPs prepare to cast this historic vote, we've broken down the differences in the two amendments, and what they mean for women. Right now, abortions can take place in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy in England, Scotland and Wales. However, they have to be approved by two doctors, who must agree having the baby would pose a greater risk to the woman's physical or mental health than a termination. Abortions were illegal before the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act, which initially allowed them to take place up to 28 weeks. This was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990. Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if: the woman's life is in danger there is a severe fetal abnormality the woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injury This is the amendment proposed by Stella Creasey, which would make accessing an abortion a human right. It seeks to decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks. It would also ensure that late-term abortions outside the Abortion Act did not result in prison sentences. This topic made headlines last year when Bethany Cox, 22, was cleared over abortion charges when prosecutors offered no evidence against her. She was the sixth woman in Great Britain in a year to be tried for illegal abortion, ie, a termination after the 24-week legal limit. Creasy believes the amendment will bring the rest of the UK into line with Northern Ireland, where abortion was decriminalised in 2019. 'Our proposal explicitly leaves in place the well-established time limit under which you can access an abortion,' Creasy said. 'It removes the threat of criminal prosecution for abortion because it is a healthcare matter.' She added: 'Abortion law is incredibly complex. It governs 250,000 women's healthcare every single year. Because of that, it is essential that any huge change to abortion law is properly considered. That means involvement with providers, medical bodies, regulators – and proper debate time in parliament.' The amendment put forward by MP Tonia Antoniazzi also seeks to decriminalise abortion at any stage by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy, ending the threat of investigation or imprisonment. However, it does not seek to make abortion a human right. Rather than seeking to create a new framework, Antoniazzi's amendment retains the existing abortion law. This more cautious approach is backed by The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) who say the more wide-ranging changes laid out in the NC20 amendment need more time to be debated. Antoniazzi said: 'We've seen a sharp rise in the number of women and girls facing criminal investigations following pregnancy loss and abortion,' she said. 'It's just wrong to put women in this situation, to put them into the criminal justice system, because this is not a criminal law issue, this is essentially a healthcare matter.' She added: 'I find it unbelievable that in the last five years, around 100 women have been investigated by the police. It's just wrong. It's a waste of taxpayers' money, it's a waste of the judiciary's time, and it's not in the public interest. Therefore, the law has to change.' Only MPs can vote on the amendment but it is a free vote, so they are allowed to vote according to their 'personal conscience'. If you'd like to encourage your MP to support either of these amendments, you can find their contact details at
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Warning over assisted dying TikTok adverts as MPs further debate Bill
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has returned to the Commons for further debate, with an ad ban among the issues discussed. The Bill is undergoing a second day of report stage on Friday, with various amendments being debated and possibly voted on. Its third reading – where a vote is taken on the overall Bill – could take place next Friday. Opening debate, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater proposed an amendment to her Bill which would impose a duty on the Government to make regulations prohibiting advertisements to promote services relating to voluntary assisted dying should the legislation pass. She has previously said it 'would feel inappropriate for this to be something which was advertised'. Bill opponent and fellow Labour MP Paul Waugh warned of 'unspecified exceptions, which could make the ban itself worthless', adding he had put forward a tighter amendment to 'strengthen the Bill on this issue and to better protect the vulnerable'. Addressing the Commons, he said: 'Advertising works because we human beings are suggestible. Prone to messaging, visual clues and hints. Older people are bombarded with adverts for everything from stairlifts to care homes. 'One person's advert, though, is another person's public information campaign.' He added that unless Ms Leadbeater's amendment is tightened to limit the exceptions to a ban, social media ads on the issue in future would be possible. He said: 'Many in this House rightly try to protect teenagers from online harms. But the online harm of an ad for a website about assisted dying shared on TikTok could be a reality without the tighter safeguards in my amendment.' Other issues being debated on Friday include an amendment requiring the Health Secretary to publish an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care one year after the Bill passing into law. Pledging her support for the amendment, which has been tabled by Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson, Ms Leadbeater said MPs should not have to choose between supporting assisted dying or palliative care as it is not an 'either/or' conversation for dying people. She said palliative care and assisted dying 'can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days', and urged MPs to support 'all options available to terminally ill people'. Ms Wilson's amendment is supported by Marie Curie, which said it is 'desperately needed as the end-of-life care system is in crisis, with huge gaps in services and a lack of NHS leadership on this vital part of our health and care system'. The beginning of Friday's session saw MPs add a new opt-out clause to the Bill. The amendment, meaning no person including all health and social care professionals, can be obliged to take part in assisted dying had been debated and approved last month, but has now been formally added to the Bill. The Bill passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 during a historic vote in November which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying. Various media reports have indicated some MPs who voted in favour last year could withdraw their support amid concerns around safeguards and how much scrutiny the proposed legislation has received, while others might switch to supporting a Bill that backers argue has been strengthened over time. Opinion in the medical community has been divided, with the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) expressing concern, but some MPs who are doctors are among the Bill's strongest supporters. Seven RCPsych members, including a former president and vice president, have written to MPs to distance themselves from their college's concern, instead describing the current Bill as 'workable, safe and compassionate' with a 'clear and transparent legal framework'. Meanwhile, the Children's Commissioner for England has repeated her call for children's voices to be heard in the conversation, saying their views had been 'at best been sidelined, at worst written off entirely simply because they would not fall within the scope of the current scope of legislation'. Demonstrators both for and against a change in the law once again gathered outside Parliament to make their views known on the Bill. Disability campaigner George Fielding, representing campaign group Not Dead Yet UK, argued the Bill 'risks state-sanctioned suicide' but Claire Macdonald, director of My Death, My Decision said 'no-one should be forced to suffer, and the British public wants politicians to change the law on assisted dying'. In a letter to MPs this week, Ms Leadbeater said supporters and opponents appear in agreement that 'if we are to pass this legislation it should be the best and safest Bill possible'. She added: 'I'm confident it can and will be.' As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
