Judges dismiss case claiming Labour’s private school VAT infringes human rights

Court of Appeal judges have rejected claims that the introduction of VAT to private school fees is incompatible with human rights law.

A number of schools, children who attend them, and their parents had previously brought legal action against the Treasury, claiming the policy is incompatible with human rights law.

Three judges had already dismissed the High Court challenge in June last year.

In a decision on Friday morning, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal to that decision.

In a 44-page judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Singh and Lady Justice Falk said the government had provided reasonable grounds for not exempting low-cost private schools from VAT, including that it “would have serious detrimental consequences”.

They continued: “We acknowledge that the measure may have a serious impact on the group one claimants if they are unable to afford private education which accords with their religious convictions, but it is important to bear in mind that they have the option of home schooling if free education in the state sector is not acceptable to them.”

The government’s policy, which levies 20 per cent VAT on private school fees, came into effect on January 1 last year.

At the appeal hearing in January, Bruno Quintavalle, from Emmanuel School in Derby, which educates children aged 3-11, alongside and a group of Christian schools, claimed in their written submissions: “The court was wrong to hold that there was no interference with the rights of the schools to the enjoyment of possessions.”

Mr Quintavalle added: “The court was wrong to view the introduction of VAT as simply diminishing the future income of the schools: the evidence before it was that this would render the schools unviable.”

He also claimed the court had wrongly found the introduction of VAT measure did not impair the very essence of the right to an effective education.

He said: “What matters for the present claim is that individual rights, not necessarily those of a larger group, whether termed ‘Evangelical Christians’ or otherwise, have been interfered with.

“Since the evidence before the court is that the individual appellants’ convention rights have been interfered with, this is a complete answer to the group detriment arguments.”

However, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Treasury, HMRC and the Department for Education, argued that even with the introduction of VAT on private schools, parents still had the choice to send their children to free state schools or to home-educate them.

In written submissions he said: “A tax on an optional service that a consumer can elect not to use – a fortiori where, as here, the state makes the same service available for free for all children – does not interfere with the property rights of a person who may or does wish to purchase the service.”

He added: “A tax is not unlawful or disproportionate merely because the taxpayer does not personally benefit from the service it pays for.”

Sir James also said the court “correctly held that, in deciding whether the challenged measure was proportionate”, the court should give Parliament a broad margin of discretion.

Sir James said: “That conclusion is unimpeachable.”

The Independent has contacted the government for comment.

PA contributed to this report.

Why stealing ‘posh eggs’ won’t actually get you better eggs

Eggs, for most of modern supermarket history, have occupied the same mental category as salt or bin bags – things you buy absent-mindedly, rarely linger over and almost never covet.

Which makes the recent reports of shoppers discreetly transferring “posh” eggs into cheaper cartons less a petty crime story than a curious cultural shift. Somewhere between the rise of heritage breeds, rich yolks and artfully pastoral packaging, the humble egg appears to have undergone an unexpected promotion: from kitchen staple to small, brown status symbol.

They’re not the only ones. Salt used to be just salt. Now it’s Maldon, Himalayan or something smoked and hand-harvested from a Scandinavian fjord. Olive oil is the same: Waitrose stocks no fewer than 73 different bottles online (I counted). Oil from Italy, Spain, Greece, infused with chilli, garlic, basil, in plastic, tins, pouches and sprays. It’s no longer just something to fry onions in, but a lifestyle choice.

Eggs, improbably, are the latest victim of this premiumisation. What was once a straightforward purchase now comes in tiers. A box of supermarket own-brand eggs might sit between £1 and £2, still 59 per cent higher than five years ago. Move a shelf above, however, and the numbers change tone. Clarence Court’s Burford Browns are £3.35 for six. St Ewe’s Rich Yolks climb to £4.24. Purely Organic pushes higher still: £5.20 for a half dozen, a price that would have once seemed absurd for something that comes out of the wrong end of a chicken.

The variations do not end there. Rich yolks, golden yolks, big yolks. Free-range, organic, barn. Bluebell Araucana, Chestnut Maran, Leghorn Whites, Blacktails, Longstock Gold. Duck eggs, quail eggs, liquid eggs. The modern egg aisle is no longer just a grocery fixture but a taxonomy of aspiration.

Yet for all the choice, all the subtle signalling of welfare, flavour and superiority, one has to ask: do any of these eggs actually taste that different? Or have eggs simply become another supermarket object onto which we project ideas of quality, virtue and indulgence?

And, more simply, what, exactly, are shoppers paying for when they trade up?

Before blaming this entirely on aspirational packaging, it’s worth noting that egg prices have been climbing for reasons far less whimsical than shell colour or yolk vibrancy.

The economics of egg production have been under pressure for years. Feed costs alone account for roughly 60-70 per cent of the total cost of producing an egg; when those costs doubled in recent years, producers found they were losing money on every dozen laid.

At the same time, energy bills, which underpin everything from heating sheds to processing stations, have shot up by more than 50 per cent, while labour, packaging and chick replacements have all added to the burden. In late 2025, the average UK farm-gate price paid for eggs was around 148p per dozen, a small increase on the year before but far above historical levels.

Then there’s bird flu, which has transformed from occasional disruption to recurring structural risk. In the past couple of seasons, the UK has seen dozens of outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza on commercial farms, from confirmed cases in North Yorkshire and Devon to 30 swans found dead on the Thames.

When an outbreak is confirmed on a site, all birds are typically culled to stop further transmissions, and protection zones are imposed around affected premises to prevent the movement of potentially infected birds.

These responses are necessary for animal health, but they remove laying hens from the supply chain, squeezing output and reducing the number of eggs available on the market. Global outbreaks have also contributed to this pattern, with tens of millions of poultry culled in the US and similar pressures felt in Europe.

Yet these genuine economic shocks alone do not account for the curious complexity of the modern egg aisle. While producers grapple with volatility, retailers have been busy turning eggs into something rather more theatrical.

Clarence Court is perhaps the clearest symbol of this shift. With crown-stamped shells, breed names and deep bronze hues, the brand presents eggs as objects of connoisseurship, rather than mere ingredients. Burford Browns, Old Cotswold Legbar, Leghorn Whites, Seabright Sage and Cornish Blues – the language alone reframes the category. These are not just eggs. They are eggs with provenance, identity and implied superiority.

But they are also… just eggs. Much of this visible difference is rooted in genetics rather than gastronomics. Shell colour, for instance, is a function of breed, not quality – a Leghorn white is no less “egg-like” than a supermarket’s own brand. Certain heritage or slower-laying hens may produce eggs with marginally richer characteristics, but the biological gap between breeds is far narrower than the marketing poetry might suggest, and the impact on flavour is negligible.

St Ewe’s Rich Yolk eggs perform a slightly different manoeuvre. Their appeal rests on colour – those deep, burnished orange yolks that consumers instinctively read as richer, tastier, somehow better. In reality, yolk intensity is largely dictated by the hen’s diet, specifically the presence of carotenoids in feed ingredients such as maize and marigold. The effect on flavour is, at most, subtle. The effect on perception, enormous. A rich yolk tells you more about what the hen had for breakfast than what you will taste at dinner.

Purely Organic, by contrast, represents a very different, and arguably more straightforward, kind of premium. Free-range systems, once considered the upgrade, have largely become the baseline, with hens given daytime outdoor access, stocking densities capped and cages absent altogether. Organic certification pushes further still. Birds must be fed organic-certified diets, housed under stricter welfare standards and managed with tight restrictions on routine antibiotic use.

That carries unavoidable costs, which is why organic eggs reliably occupy the highest price tier. But the logic is clearer. Consumers are not being sold more photogenic yolks, but a farming philosophy built around welfare. Whether shoppers feel inclined to pay for that distinction is a personal calculation. The justification, at least, is tangible.

Nutritionally, however, the distinctions between pricing tiers are far less dramatic than the shelves might imply. Waitrose’s most basic – and cheapest – Essential Free-Range White Eggs deliver roughly 66 calories per boiled egg, alongside 6.5g of protein and 4.4g of fat. Clarence Court’s Burford Browns, St Ewe’s Rich Yolks and Purely Organic’s eggs land in near-identical nutritional territory.

Eggs, it turns out, are still one of the most nutritionally efficient foods in the supermarket, regardless of branding. Protein, fats and micronutrients arrive in broadly consistent proportions whether the shell is chalk-white, chestnut-brown or Instagram-friendly sage green. The price ladder, by contrast, stretches dramatically. What changes most conspicuously is not the nutritional payload, but how an egg makes you feel when you buy it. Or nick it.

Which brings us back to the shoppers relocating “posh eggs” into cheaper boxes. The whole exercise is slightly baffling, and, well, pointless. However handsome the shell, however burnished the yolk, the differences that actually matter are small, if not non-existent.

Scrambled eggs will still taste like scrambled eggs, even if they’ve come out of a colourful box. Fried egg on toast will still taste like fried egg on toast, even if the yolk looks richer. The Victoria sponge will not rise to new aristocratic heights, just because it’s come from a court. However deluxe the shell, it won’t change your macros. No egg can outrun its own ordinariness.

In that sense, the great egg swap is less a supermarket scam than a misunderstanding. People aren’t stealing eggs – they’re stealing what the eggs say about them.

BBC settles Gregg Wallace’s damages claim over ‘distress and harassment’

Former MasterChef host Gregg Wallace has discontinued his damages claim against the BBC after seeking £10,000 from the broadcaster.

The presenter, who was fired from the BBC show after a report upheld over 40 allegations of misconduct, claimed that the broadcaster had failed to comply with a request for copies of his personal data – causing him “distress and harassment”.

Wallace sued the BBC and its subsidiary BBC Studios Distribution Limited in October 2025 after being sacked from MasterChef. The presenter, 61, had hosted the show for 21 years before being dismissed over historic allegations of misconduct.

A BBC spokesperson told The Independent: “Shortly in advance of a hearing (due 16 February), Mr Wallace discontinued his claim. He is not receiving any payment in costs or damages from either BBC or BBC Studios.”

The Independent has contacted Gregg Wallace’s representative for comment.

In court documents, barrister Lawrence Power said that Wallace had requested “personal data” from the BBC and BBC Studios related to “his work, contractual relations and conduct”.

He claimed that Wallace had made subject access requests (SARs) to the companies on 6 March last year, but was told that parts of his personal data were being withheld due to “freedom of expression”.

Mr Power also alleged that the body had “wrongly redacted” information and “unlawfully failed to supply all of the complainant’s personal data”.

He added: “By reason of the defendants failing to fully comply with the SARs made by the claimant for his own personal data, the defendants acted in breach of their statutory duty and in doing so caused distress and harassment to the claimant.”

The BBC rejected Wallace’s claim at the time, stating that he was not “entitled to any damages”. Filing its defence to the High Court in October, the broadcaster denied that Wallace had “suffered any distress or harassment” as a result of its responses to his requests and claimed that he pursued the lawsuit without giving any prior notice.

In July last year, a report into Wallace’s behaviour on MasterChef upheld 45 out of 83 allegations of misconduct – including one of unwelcome physical contact.

According to the report, which was conducted by production company Banijay with law firm Lewis Silkin, a “smaller number of allegations of other inappropriate language and being in a state of undress” were also upheld.

At the time, the BBC apologised to “everyone who has been impacted by Mr Wallace’s behaviour”, admitting: “We accept more could and should have been done sooner.”

Shortly before the report’s release, Wallace took to Instagram to announce that he had been axed from MasterChef and to “apologise without reservation” for the language he was “primarily guilty of” using. He added: “I recognise that some of my humour and language, at times, was inappropriate.”

However, he claimed that the findings “exonerated [him] of all the serious allegations which made headlines last year”.

Since his exit, Wallace has stepped away from the spotlight and instead focused on making Cameo videos for fans. The host said earlier this month that he was “the most requested” celebrity on the personalised video site for Valentine’s Day.

“Love sending the messages. Some very romantic, some very funny,” he wrote on Tuesday (17 February).

Wallace wasn’t the only long-standing MasterChef host to leave in disgrace – John Torode was dropped from the show after the investigation into Wallace found his co-host had used an “extremely offensive racist term”.

Torode, who began hosting MasterChef in 2005, said that he had “no recollection of the incident” and was “shocked and saddened” by the allegation in an Instagram post last July.

He denied the allegation of using the racist term, which was investigated and substantiated by Lewis Silkin in their report, and said that he knows any racial language “is wholly unacceptable in any environment”.

Torode continues to appear on This Morning during the cooking segments and still hosts John and Lisa’s Weekend Kitchen on ITV with his wife, Lisa Faulkner.

MasterChef is now hosted by food critic Grace Dent and chef Anna Haugh, while Saturday Kitchen’s Matt Tebbutt took over Wallace’s presenting duties on MasterChef: The Professionals.

Couple face £3.7m court bill after trying to stop tower that blocked light to home

A retired couple who sued developers over a 17-storey tower that blocked light to their home could now face a £3.7m court bill – despite winning their case.

Stephen and Jennifer Powell said that the Arbor tower, part of the £2bn Bankside Yards development on London’s South Bank, “substantially” reduced the natural light getting into their sixth-floor apartment in the next-door Bankside Lofts.

Bankside Yards is eventually set to comprise eight towers, including “mega-structures” 50 storeys high.

Arbor was the first building completed in September 2021.

The Powells and their seventh-floor neighbour Kevin Cooper sought an injunction to protect their right of light, threatening the tower, which cost nearly £35m to build, with potentially being torn down.

Mr Justice Fancourt, ruling on the case at the High Court, said that the couple’s flat was “substantially affected” by their light being cut off.

He ordered the co-developer of the site, Ludgate House Ltd, to pay the Powells £500,000 in damages, plus £350,000 to Mr Cooper.

But the householders are now facing a bid to make them pay the £3.7m legal costs of the case due to the judge having rejected their bid for an injunction requiring the tower to be demolished.

During the trial, the court heard that the Powells have lived in their flat for over 20 years, while property finance professional Mr Cooper bought his seventh-floor flat in 2021.

Their barrister, Tim Calland, told Mr Justice Fancourt: “The Bankside Yards development will consist of eight towers, the tallest of which stretches to 50 storeys in height. The marketing material for Arbor describes it as a mega-structure and boasts of exceptional natural light.

“The claimants maintain that this will have been achieved – wrongfully – at the expense of their light.

“Light is not an unnecessary ‘add on’ to a dwelling. Light does not just give pleasure, but provides the very benefits of health, wellbeing and productivity which the defendants are using to advertise the development.

“That is the reason the claimants have brought their claims.”

Mr Justice Fancourt went on to award damages to the Powells and Mr Cooper, saying that parts of the two flats had been left with levels of light “insufficient for the ordinary use and enjoyment of those rooms”.

But he refused the neighbours an injunction requiring Arbor to be altered or torn down, saying that over £200m would be wasted in demolishing and rebuilding the tower, with massive associated “environmental damage”.

That decision means that the Powells and Mr Cooper ought to now pay the massive costs of the case, John Mcghee KC, for the developer, argued in a fresh hearing this week.

He told the judge: “The claimants should be ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the claims because it was overall the successful party, having successfully resisted the claimants’ claim for injunctive relief.

“These claims were not about monetary compensation, but rather about whether the claimants could obtain an order requiring the defendant to modify its development so that the claimants would retain their light.

“The claimants did not achieve what was the ‘the purpose of their claims’, which was to obtain injunctive relief. Those claims were dismissed.

“So far as the defendant was concerned too, the possibility of injunctive relief was its real concern in these proceedings. If injunctive relief was granted, the defendant would have been required to demolish part of Arbor at a cost of £15-20m and incur a further £225m in rebuilding.

“It is true that the claimants obtained an order for damages and interest amounting to £397,484.64, in the case of Mr Cooper, and £567,835.21, in the case of the Powells. But those sums, particularly as to damages, were entirely aligned with the sums offered by the defendant and only a small fraction of the sum of £3.37m sought by Mr Cooper and £3m sought by the Powells.”

He said the claims were over-inflated and amounted to more than three times the value of their respective flats.

“In real life, the defendant is the winner in this litigation in that it can maintain and continue with its development unhampered by the claimants’ claims.

“The claimants are in reality the losers, having failed to achieve what was their stated sole purpose of bringing these claims in the first place.

“For these reasons, the court is invited to determine that the defendant was the successful party and accordingly that the claimants should pay the defendant’s costs.”

The barrister added that the householders should pay 75 per cent of the developer’s costs if the judge found against his plea for them to foot the whole bill.

Tim Calland, for the neighbours, however disagreed, telling the judge: “Undoubtedly, the claimants are the successful party in the litigation: the court awarded them substantial sums in damages which, in the case of the Powells, exceeded the largest sum ever before awarded in a reported rights-of-light case and, in the case of Mr Cooper, matched it.

“The defendant may feel relief that an injunction was not ordered, but that does not make it the successful party. Its defence of the claim failed.

“Before this litigation, the defendant was only willing to offer the claimants book-value settlements. They had to make these claims, which have been exceptionally hard-fought and expensive, and to see them through to trial to establish and vindicate their rights.

“On any view, they have succeeded: in accordance with the general rule, the claimants should be awarded their costs.”

The developers are also arguing that Mr Cooper failed to beat an offer they made to settle his claim before trial, but his lawyers are arguing that the offer was invalid in relation to costs consequences as it included matters that went beyond those being fought over in the litigation.

In refusing the injunction to demolish the tower in his judgment in 2025, the judge had said: “The claimants say that an injunction is the right remedy to grant because the defendant has deliberately proceeded with its development in the face of the claimants’ rights, knowing that there was probably an infringement, and taking the chance that it would be able to buy off the claimants and all those in an equivalent position.

“The claimants are people who say that they have a particular and strong attraction to the benefits of natural light directly from the sky, and are unwilling to see that light taken away from them as a fait accompli.

“The position was, I am sure, exacerbated by … advertising the new development as having ‘exceptional levels of natural light’ that promote productivity and wellbeing, which Mr Cooper pointed out amounted to the developer helping itself to his light and offering a modest payment while intending to sell it to others for a high price.”

But he added: “There are strong arguments, in modern times, why over £200m of development costs should not be wasted. There would also be substantial harm done by a further, complex demolition contract and considerable environmental damage as a result.

“Apart from the financial interest of the developer, to which an order for demolition could be said to be oppressive in comparison with the degree of harm done to the claimants, there is a significant public interest that needs to be taken into account.”

The ruling on costs will now be given at a later date.

The Wire actor Bobby J Brown dies in tragic barn fire, aged 62

The Wire actor Bobby J Brown, who played a cop with his own name, has died in a tragic barn fire, aged 62.

Brown, who started as a professional boxer, was hailed as “a man of immense talent and incredible discipline” by his agent, Dr Albert Bramante, following his death on Tuesday (24 February).

The actor’s death was ruled an accident by the Maryland Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, with the cause listed as “diffuse thermal injury and smoke inhalation”.

St Mary’s County press release said firefighters arrived on the scene to find the barn “nearly fully engulfed in fire”, which Brown had entered so he could jump-start a vehicle.

“Family members on scene confirmed that one individual was still inside the structure. After the fire was brought under control, firefighters located a deceased male victim within the barn.”

His daughter Reina, who didn’t live with Brown, told People that her father had called for a family member to bring him a fire extinguisher as the flames spread.

”Everybody is still trying to process it – it’s been difficult for all of us,” she said.

TMZ reported that Brown’s wife suffered severe burns on her hands while attempting to save his life. The family has requested privacy.

Shortly after becoming a champion in the boxing ring, winning five Golden Glove Championships, he attended acting school in New York and was cast by David Simon in his early TV shows Homicide: Life on the Street and The Corner.

The actor is best known for playing a Baltimore officer – named Bobby Brown – in David Simon’s acclaimed HBO drama The Wire. He made an uncredited appearance in season one before returning as a guest star in seasons four and five, appearing in 12 episodes in total.

He also appeared in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit as well as Simon’s most recent TV show, We Own This City.

“He transitioned from a champion in the boxing ring to a powerful presence on screen with a grace and dedication that inspired everyone at the agency,” a statement announcing Brown’s death read.

“He was a true professional and an even better human being. We are heartbroken by this loss.”

The actor is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Win £60k and better your home-buying story with Experian

Buying your first home is a big deal. One small step up the ladder is a giant leap into a new phase of life. On the other hand, you’ll never have done something remotely that expensive – and that’s scary.

Let’s face it, getting there isn’t easy. The average first-time buyer in the UK currently pays £311,034 for their first home. To help get a mortgage you need a deposit, a steady income and, crucially, a strong credit score.

To help you better your home-buying story, Experian is offering an incredible £60k cash prize to help one lucky buyer turn their dream home into a reality. Enter here to be in with a chance.*

For many people, times have been particularly tricky with money over the last few years. If bills have been hard to meet, your credit score might have taken a hit. This can make it harder to get a lender to give the thumbs up to a decent mortgage. A massive stumbling block to getting that first home.

But help is at hand. Experian is the money platform that helps would-be first-time buyers make the kind of smart money moves that’ll grow their score, and their chances of a mortgage they can afford.

They want everyone to have a better shot at getting that first-own-home feeling. So, they’re running a prize draw in February and March 2026, offering new customers the chance to win £60k – the equivalent of the average deposit for a first-time buyer in the UK.

The competition is live on the Experian website now and will run until 18th April. To be able to enter you need to sign up as a new customer of Experian during this period.

It’s a number generated by a credit reference agency like Experian, and it reflects your financial history over the last six years. This includes things like how reliable you’ve been at paying bills on time and meeting your monthly payments for loans and credit cards.

The score’s a handy snapshot of all of this. The higher your score, the more likely you are to get a mortgage. As your score gets better, so do your chances of seeing better interest rates – and saving money on interest can make a big difference to what you’re paying out every month. Over the lifetime of a mortgage, it could mean savings in the tens or even hundreds of thousands.

Whether or not you’re the lucky winner of the prize draw, there’s plenty you can do to help your score grow. Getting a free Experian account is the first step in taking control and getting on the path to owning your own place.

Understanding your credit report is really important. Whilst your credit score is a snapshot of where you’re at, your credit report is your financial CV. It shows things like the loans, credit cards and mobile phone contracts you have, and how well you’re paying them off. It highlights any court judgments or insolvencies, whether you’re on the electoral roll, and if you’ve made any recent applications for credit.

Ideally, you want to check your credit report about a year before you apply for the mortgage. This will let you see what lenders see when you apply – plus it gives you a little more time to get on top of any issues. There are some quick wins – like registering to vote – easy things that lenders love to see.

A little more challenging is reducing any debt you can: try to keep credit card balances at under 30 per cent of the limit. Lower balances help your score and show lenders you’re in control of your money. If you’ve got unused credit cards or store accounts you don’t need, consider closing them, especially if they come with fees. A quick note on that though – if you’ve held an account for years, this can help show long-term stability which lenders really like.

Conversely, if you don’t have much credit history then it can be tricky for lenders to get a sense of your reliability, so in that case it’s worth thinking about getting a credit card and spending responsibly on it. Pay off the balance off in full each month. That way you won’t be charged interest and it looks good to lenders.

It’s best not to make any credit applications in the six months before your mortgage application though, as this can be seen negatively by lenders. So if you are applying for a card, do it before that point.

There are lots of steps you can take to correct financial difficulties and get your credit score back on track. If you’ve had a tough time recently – an illness perhaps, or an unexpected job loss – you can add a Notice of Correction to your account, a short statement that explains what happened and gives context to lenders.

If you’re finding it tricky to make payments on time, for whatever reason, it’s important to speak up. Contact the lender you’re struggling to pay and let them know. There are free debt charities that help thousands of people every day that you could contact too. And it’s important to know, seeking this kind of guidance won’t impact your score.

All these steps will help get you mortgage-ready. The better prepared you are, the more likely you are to get your very own place sooner.

To find out more about your credit score and how to grow it head to Experian

UK (incl. C.I. & I.O.M), 18+, not existing Experian account holders only. Between 00:01 18/02/26 & 23:59 18/04/26, visit experian.co.uk/win, enter your email, then successfully create an Experian account by submitting details to enter. Account must be approved to enter. No purchase. Prize: 1 x £60,000. Internet, email & UK/CI/IOM bank account required. 1 entry per person. Full T&Cs & Prize details: experian.co.uk/win . Promoter: Experian Ltd, The Sir John Peace Building, Experian Way, NG2 Business Park, Nottingham NG80 1ZZ.

Search for evidence Epstein used RAF bases for sex trafficking

John Healey has ordered a review of military files for any evidence that Jeffrey Epstein used Royal Air Force (RAF) bases to traffic women and girls into the UK.

The defence secretary has told officials to search more than two decades of Ministry of Defence (MoD) records and give police any flight logs linked to the late paedophile financier.

It comes after former prime minister Gordon Brown wrote to six police forces demanding investigations into whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor used jets, funded by the taxpayer, and RAF bases, during his time as trade envoy to meet Epstein.

Mr Mountbatten-Windsor and former UK ambassador to Washington, Lord Peter Mandelson, were arrested and released on bail earlier this month over alleged links with the convicted sex offender.

A MoD spokesperson said: “The defence secretary has ordered a review of all records that the department may hold relating to Epstein flights landing at RAF bases to ensure that any information which relates to Epstein’s crimes is uncovered and provided to the relevant authorities.

“The MoD will support any civilian police investigations.

“Our thoughts are with all the victims of Epstein’s vile crimes.”

It is reportedly not unusual for spare capacity at RAF airfields to be used for private jets, with private customers charged fees which cover all costs.

Such use is only approved when it does not interfere with the security or smooth running of the airfield.

Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer on Wednesday dodged calls for a public inquiry into Epstein and his possible use of British airports, saying any police investigations should take their course first.

Champions League draw revealed as six English teams learn fate

Chelsea will play Champions League holders Paris Saint-Germain in the last-16, while Manchester City will once again play Real Madrid and Newcastle will take on Barcelona in a glamour tie.

Liverpool drew Galatasaray while Tottenham were paired with Atletico Madrid. Premier League leaders Arsenal, meanwhile, will play Bayer Leverkusen. Bodo/Glimt, this season’s surprise package, will face Sporting – after the Norwegian minnows knocked out last season’s finalists Inter.

This morning’s draw did not just create the last-16 schedule, but revealed the path of the Champions League final, as teams also discovered who they could face if they progress to the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final.

Should Arsenal advance, they will play the winners of Bodo/Glimt’s tie with Sporting – with the Gunners also drawn in the same half of the draw as Newcastle, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid and Tottenham.

Should Liverpool advance, they will play either Chelsea or PSG in the quarter-finals, while Manchester City would play either Bayern Munich or Atalanta if they progress past Real Madrid.

Follow live updates from the Champions League draw, below: