Prison guard stabbed with knife that was ‘flown in by a drone'
Police are investigating after the prison officer was attacked at Long Lartin, a category A prison in Evesham, Worcestershire, which houses some of the most dangerous criminals in the country. These include Thomas Cashman, who murdered nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel in Liverpool in 2022, and Vincent Tabak, who killed Joanna Yeates in Bristol in 2010.
The officer was airlifted to hospital after the attack, which happened on Friday morning. The guard has undergone emergency surgery, according to the BBC.
On Friday night a Prison Service spokesman said that the officer is still in hospital receiving treatment but in a stable condition.
A source with knowledge of the prison told MailOnline that the attacker used a flick-knife that was flown into the jail by a drone. The Prison Service was unable to confirm how the knife got into the prison but said that this was a line of inquiry in the police investigation.
The attack has renewed calls for the government to allow prison officers to wear stab-proof vests. A 'rapid review' ordered by Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, is ongoing but is expected to be given the go-ahead next week.
Charlie Taylor, the chief inspector of prisons, warned in January that drones were smuggling drugs and weapons into Long Lartin so frequently that it was posing a threat to national security. He accused the police and Prison Service of ceding control of the airspace above the prison.
The watchdog said the jail had a 'thriving' drugs market and CCTV had been allowed to fall into disrepair.
It is the latest attack to unfold inside Britain's highest security jails within the last two months and has prompted concern over growing levels of violence.
Last month the Manchester Arena bomber Hashem Abedi attacked three prison officers with boiling cooking oil and makeshift knives from within a terrorist separation centre in Frankland prison in Co Durham. A day later a prisoner killed a convicted murderer at Whitemoor prison in Cambridgeshire. Earlier this week two prison officers at the same jail were taken to hospital after two separate attacks.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said the attack at Long Lartin exposed the urgent need to give prison officers stab proof vests.
He said: 'Our brave prison officers are lions led by donkeys. The government's shameful refusal to equip them immediately with stab vests is risking lives. It's a disgrace. They must have the protection and powers they need to crack down on these vile offenders.
'How many more officers need to be stabbed before the Ministry of Justice finally gives them stab vests and crackdowns on drones delivering weapons?'
A Prison Service spokesman said: 'Police are investigating an attack on a prison officer at HMP Long Lartin. We will not tolerate assaults on hard-working staff and will always push for the strongest punishments against perpetrators.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why did Lucy Connolly receive a 31-month sentence for Southport tweet?
The case of Lucy Connolly has sparked intense debate since she was jailed for inciting racial hatred online following the Southport attacks, with some criticising her sentence as excessive. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Connolly's sentence was 'harsher than the sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting'. Here, the PA news agency explores her case and 31-month prison sentence. – What offence did Lucy Connolly commit? Connolly pleaded guilty in September to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X, formerly Twitter. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.' The post was viewed 310,000 times in three and a half hours before she deleted it. The charge, contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, said that she 'published and distributed written material on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, which was threatening, abusive or insulting with the intent thereby to stir up racial hatred or whereby, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred was likely to be stirred up thereby'. The 1986 Act covers offences around incitement, public disorder and harassment, and covers both online and offline offences. – How was Lucy Connolly sentenced? Connolly admitted a 'category 1A' offence, meaning that her culpability was deemed to be in 'category A', and the harm was in 'category one' – both the highest categories. Guidelines on how to sentence offenders for several crimes are published by the Sentencing Council, an independent body which is led by the judiciary. The guidance for racial hatred offences states that those who commit such a crime are to be deemed to have high culpability if they demonstrate one or more of three factors. These are using a 'position of trust, authority or influence to stir up hatred', showing an 'intention to incite serious violence' and demonstrating 'persistent activity'. A publication is considered to cause 'category one' harm if it 'directly encourages activity which threatens or endangers life', and there is 'widespread dissemination'. The maximum sentence for the offence is seven years behind bars. Defendants who commit category 1A offences can be sentenced to between two and six years in prison, with the 'starting point' for sentences – the point used before aggravating and mitigating factors are considered – being three years. – How did the sentencing judge categorise the offence? During sentencing, Judge Melbourne Inman KC said both prosecution and defence barristers agreed that the case involved a 'category 1A' offence. He said the timing of the post was a 'further significant aggravating factor' to the offence, which came amid a 'particularly sensitive social climate'. He added that in the three and a half hours between Connolly publishing and deleting the post, it was 'widely read', having been viewed '310,000 times with 940 reposts, 58 quotes and 113 bookmarks'. In mitigation, Judge Inman said Connolly had no previous convictions, that it was her first time in prison, that she did not repeat her statement and deleted the post, and that she 'sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer'. He also said he accepted she still 'very keenly' felt the loss of her own child several years ago, and that she regretted her actions. But he also found that Connolly had 'little insight into, or acceptance of' her offending. He said: 'Whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport, you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred.' He added that the sentence he would have imposed after a trial was one of three and a half years – 42 months – but then reduced this by a quarter because of Connolly's early guilty plea, resulting in the final sentence of 31 months. – What happened when Connolly appealed against her sentence? At the Court of Appeal in May, judges dismissed a legal challenge against her sentence. In a written judgment, Lord Justice Holroyde, said: 'There is no arguable basis on which it could be said that the sentence imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive.' Lawyers for Connolly had said that Judge Inman 'miscategorised' the offence, claiming her culpability should have been deemed as 'category B', and that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating features. But Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Sheldon, ruled that Connolly 'willingly pleaded guilty' to the offence and that Judge Inman was 'entitled, and indeed obviously correct, to categorise the case as he did'. Connolly's husband, Conservative councillor Ray Connolly branded the decision 'shocking and unfair'. The Northampton town councillor, and former West Northamptonshire district councillor, said his wife had 'paid a very high price for making a mistake'. But Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer defended it earlier this year. He was asked about Connolly's case after her Court of Appeal application against her jail term was dismissed. Asked during Prime Minister's Questions whether her imprisonment was an 'efficient or fair use' of prison, Sir Keir said: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. 'I am strongly in favour of free speech, we've had free speech in this country for a very long time and we protect it fiercely. 'But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' – What has the response been to her case? Lord Young of Acton, founder and director of the Free Speech Union, which funded Connolly's legal challenge, said: 'The fact that Lucy Connolly has spent more than a year in prison for a single tweet that she quickly deleted and apologised for is a national scandal.' Conservative and Reform politicians have decried what they call 'two-tier justice' in her case comparing it with that of Ricky Jones, a suspended Labour councillor who was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder at an anti-racism rally in the wake of the Southport murders. Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice has also proposed 'Lucy's Bill' after Connolly's case in Parliament, which would allow people to mount mass appeals against punishments they deem to be too severe or lenient.
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Watchdog urged to probe ‘dangerous shambles' of Afghan relocation data breaches
A watchdog has been urged to investigate the 'dangerous shambles' of Afghan relocation data breaches after the Ministry of Defence reportedly admitted more than previously known. A freedom of information request by the BBC revealed there have been 49 data breaches in the past four years, including four already known to the public. Seven breaches were serious enough to be reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), three of which had not been made public, the broadcaster reported. Those three included one in 2021 and two in 2022, the same year a major leak prompted the Government to obtain an unprecedented superinjunction barring journalists from reporting it. Sean Humber, a lawyer at Leigh Day, which acts for Afghan citizens affected by previous breaches, said the latest reports are 'shocking' and confirm the MoD 'appears to be institutionally incapable of keeping personal data safe'. He said: 'These data breaches betray a cavalier attitude to keeping such sensitive information safe as well as a complete disregard for the potentially life and death consequences of failing to do so. 'The Information Commissioner's Office must now roll up its sleeves and carry out a thorough and immediate investigation of what appears to be systemic failures of data protection policies, procedures or practices by the Ministry of Defence. This dangerous shambles cannot be allowed to continue. 'All those affected must be notified of the breach of their personal data, including the personal data affected, without further delay and appropriate steps taken to ensure their safety.' Adnan Malik, of Barings Law, which represents 1,500 affected people, said: 'This represents a deeply alarming data failure and the recent 49 Ministry of Defence breaches make clear that the Afghan case was not an isolated error but part of a wider and troubling pattern of negligence. 'Transparency is not optional; it is critical for protecting individuals, maintaining public trust, and ensuring that lessons are learned to prevent future breaches.' The MoD did not provide any details of the nature of each breach. Last month, a High Court judge lifted the gagging order relating to the major breach, which saw the details of 18,714 applicants for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in 2022. When the breach was discovered more than a year later in August 2023, the MoD was granted an unprecedented gagging order amid fears the Taliban could target would-be refugees for reprisals. It also saw the establishment of a secret £850 million scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR), to bring thousands of those affected to the UK. Arap was responsible for relocating Afghan nationals who had worked for or with the UK Government and were therefore at risk of reprisals once the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021. An MoD spokesperson said: 'We take data security extremely seriously and are committed to ensuring that any incidents are dealt with properly, and that we follow our legal duties. 'All incidents that meet the threshold under UK data protection laws are referred to the Information Commissioner's Office and any lesser incidents are examined internally to ensure lessons are learned.' The ICO said it continues to engage with the MoD to be 'assured that they have made the required improvements'.
BBC News
4 minutes ago
- BBC News
Worcester police arrest one after hundreds join asylum hotel demo
Hundreds of people have gathered as protesters, many carrying England flags, called for an end to hotels being used to house asylum seekers, while anti-racism campaigners staged a counter-demo Andy Hodgetts, from West Mercia Police, confirmed there were two protests in Worcester on Wednesday night outside the Fownes Hotel - believed to be housing asylum seekers - with about 250 people in said officers worked to ensure people could express their human rights without breaching the peace and causing safety concerns.A 38-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer. After both union jack and St George's flags appeared on lampposts and roundabouts in the city in recent weeks, both Labour and Conservative politicians spoke out in support of expressions of patriotism, but called for people to follow the rules. Mayor of Worcester and Labour councillor Matt Lamb joined the counter-protesters to show his "unity and solidarity for the people in the Fownes Hotel".He said the right to protest peacefully was part of the freedoms people enjoy in Britain, adding: "If people want to protest outside the Fownes Hotel, as long as they do it peacefully, without intimidating people, that's fine."After flags appeared around the city, Lamb said the two issues were said he had flown union jack flags at his own property for the Lionesses' victory in the UEFA Women's Euros and he had no problem with the union jack or St George's flag, adding: "At the end of the day, I'm a patriot, I love my country."But he said the rules were clear that flags should not be flown from lampposts. Bromsgrove's Conservative MP Bradley Thomas called for the St George's flag to be flown more to stop it being claimed by "extremists".Thomas said people should take pride in the English flag and show it in their cars, homes and gardens, adding: "The very fact that if we're not collectively standing by the flag and don't fly it with pride, enables it to be adopted by those who've got extreme views."He advised people against painting the flag on roundabouts or flying it from lampposts and said: "We've got to respect property rights."Reform UK-led Worcestershire County Council said there were no plans to remove flags on lampposts, but police are treating the painting of roundabouts as "criminal damage". Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
