Massive cocaine haul valued at £100m seized at UK port
The enormous haul was found under containers on a ship arriving into London Gateway port from Panama, the Home Office said.
Specialist officers detected the shipment earlier this month after carrying out an intelligence-led operation.
With help from the port operator, they moved 37 large containers to get at the stash.
Worth an estimated £96 million, it marks the sixth-largest cocaine seizure since records began.
Minister for migration and citizenship Seema Malhotra said: 'Drugs gangs trying to import illegal substances into the UK are a blight on society and we will leave no stone left unturned in our pursuit of organised crime gangs inflicting addiction, misery and death upon Britain's communities.
'Well done to Border Force Maritime officers on a hugely successful operation, which has struck a major blow against the criminals threatening our country.'
Cocaine-related deaths in England and Wales rose by 31% between 2022 and 2023, the Home Office said.
Border Force Maritime director Charlie Eastaugh said: 'This seizure – one of the largest of its kind – is just one example of how dedicated Border Force maritime officers remain one step ahead of the criminal gangs who threaten our security.
'Our message to these criminals is clear – more than ever before, we are using intelligence and international law enforcement co-operation to disrupt and dismantle your operations.'
Container ships are one of the main methods used by gangs to smuggle cocaine into the UK, Mr Eastaugh told The Times.
Meanwhile, a haul of 20 firearms, 320 rounds of ammunition, 170kg of ketamine and 4,000 MDMA pills have been found in a lorry at Dover Port.
National Crime Agency investigators estimate the street value of the ketamine would have been around £4.5 million and £40,000 for the MDMA.
The driver, a 34-year-old Tajikstan national, was arrested on suspicion of smuggling the illegal items.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
8 hours ago
- Times
Albanian burglar's crimes not ‘extreme' enough for deportation
A serial burglar with nearly 50 convictions cannot be deported back to Albania after a judge ruled that his offending was not sufficiently 'extreme' to provoke public 'revulsion'. An immigration appeal hearing was told that Zenel Beshi had been jailed for six years in Italy for robbery, theft and false imprisonment, and that he had failed to disclose his convictions after arriving in Britain. Home Office officials argued that Beshi, who is in his mid-forties, posed a 'genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat' to the UK and should be deported. Judge Leonie Hirst acknowledged that Beshi's offending was 'serious and prolific' but ruled that his crimes were not of the 'very extreme' type that would cause 'deep public revulsion'. She upheld the decision of a lower tribunal to allow him to remain in the UK. Earlier, the upper tribunal was told that Beshi, a member of an Albanian criminal gang, was sentenced by appeal judges in Turin to six years in prison in 2017 after being convicted of robbery and false imprisonment as well as 44 charges of burglary and theft. He was released from prison by 2020 and moved to the UK, where he applied for a European Economic Area residence card as his spouse was an EEA citizen. That application was initially refused because Beshi had not provided evidence that his partner had EU treaty rights, but he successfully appealed and was granted a residency card. However, while awaiting the outcome of that appeal, he applied for leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme, which was implemented after the UK quit the bloc. Whitehall officials told an immigration judge that Beshi had not disclosed his previous burglary convictions. And in 2022, a year after his residence card was issued, officials moved to deport him on the grounds he posed a 'genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat' to the public. Beshi's settlement application was rejected on the same day. He took his claim to the lower tribunal in 2023, which, after hearing evidence from a psychologist, concluded that he was at low risk of reoffending and did not pose a serious threat to society. On that basis, Beshi was allowed to remain in the country. But Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, appealed against the ruling, arguing that the tribunal had misapplied the burden of proof, used the wrong threshold for protection from deportation, taken the incorrect approach to deportation and not given clear conclusions. In her ruling on that appeal, Hirst said that the issue of whether Beshi had disclosed his convictions was at best of 'limited relevance' to whether he should be allowed to stay in the UK. Backing the initial ruling, the judge said that while Beshi's 'previous offending was clearly both serious and prolific', the evidence 'did not on any view indicate that it was of the very extreme type of offending causing deep public revulsion which would justify expulsion'. Hirst praised the original judge's 'detailed, clear and well-structured' consideration of the case and said that there had been no error in law. The senior judge accepted that the original ruling had 'expressly recorded' that the psychologist had noted inconsistencies in Beshi's account, 'which appeared to indicate that he was minimising his culpability'. But Hirst supported the lower tribunal's view that 'notwithstanding those issues', Beshi was at 'low risk of violence and low risk of serious harm to others'. She added that the Home Office had failed to provide evidence to support the case that the Albanian should be deported and that officials' criticisms of the original judgment were 'not well founded'.
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
London cafe with royal link could be forced to close
Café Diana, which was named in honour of the former Princess of Wales, faces a licence review by the Home Office. The café is accused of illegally hiring migrants, with some workers allegedly paid only in food. Further allegations include allowing the unlawful smoking of shisha in its basement, where unlabelled shisha tobacco was seized. The Home Office said seven illegal employees were found working there between September 2019 and December 2024. The business previously incurred a £135,000 civil penalty in April for illegally employing three migrants, with a ruling on its licence expected on Thursday.
Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Telegraph
Illegal migrant allowed to stay because he criticised his government on social media
A Zimbabwean asylum seeker has been allowed to stay in Britain after criticising his country's government on social media. The unnamed man, who was caught working illegally 17 years ago, initially had his claim refused because a judge ruled his political activity was merely a 'device' to strengthen his application. However, at a new hearing, a judge suggested that, even though there were doubts about the veracity of his claim, the Zimbabwean's new official role as vice-treasurer within the UK branch of the opposition meant he had an elevated status above the 'rank and file.' As a result, they said, he would now be at risk from the authorities if he were sent back. His case will now be reheard by a new immigration tribunal, after the Home Office said his membership of the opposition was 'self-serving' and becoming vice-treasurer was just another attempt to bolster his claim. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph where illegal migrants, or convicted foreign criminals, have been able to remain in the UK or halt their removal from the UK. Ministers are proposing to raise the threshold to make it harder for judges to grant the right to remain based on Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to a family life, and Article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Zimbabwean first came to the UK in 2005 when he was in his mid-20s, but was later found working illegally using false papers, at which point he claimed asylum. It was refused and he appealed, only for that appeal to be rejected. A tribunal ruled that he was at the 'very lowest level' of the party which would not attract interest from the African country's intelligence services. It also concluded that his membership was merely a 'device' to bolster a future asylum claim. Despite losing his appeal in 2008, he remained in the country, lodging further challenges until August 2022 when he joined the Citizens Coalition for Change, a successor to the Movement for Democratic Change, and became the vice-treasurer of his local branch. He was also listed online as a speaker at a protest, featured on the branch Facebook page, and made social media posts critical of the Zimbabwean government. His claim for asylum was backed by a first tier tribunal which ruled that his 'perceived political opinion' would put him at risk of ill-treatment. The Home Office appealed, arguing that his decision to join the Citizens Coalition for Change was 'self-serving' and becoming vice-treasurer was just another attempt to bolster his claim. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge David Merrigan concluded that if the Zimbabwean was not 'genuinely politically motivated', as the lower chamber ruled, then he could delete his social media and request that the branch do the same. Additionally, his 'recent and modest' political contributions did not justify overruling the 2008 decision that he was 'no more than a rank and file' member. Judge Merrigan found that these were errors of law which required sending the case back to the First-tier Tribunal to be decided again. He said: 'The question then becomes why, if the [Zimbabwean] is not genuinely politically motivated, he would not simply delete his social media accounts and request that the Citizens Coalition for Change delete him from their accounts and website. The [First-tier Tribunal] did not address this question... 'The [First-tier Tribunal] has not provided justification as to why the appellant's status as a branch vice treasurer, and the limited role it has given him in branch business, should in itself justify departing from [the 2008] decision that the appellant is no more than a rank and file member. 'It is unclear to me, given the apparently recent and modest contribution the appellant has made to his Citizens Coalition for Change branch, what that justification could have been. Plainly this constitutes an error of law.'
