Labour minister resigns amid probe into ‘smear campaign’

Cabinet Office minister Josh Simons has dramatically resigned amid a probe into claims a Labour think tank he once ran paid for an investigation to “smear” journalists.

Mr Simons said he was stepping down his role at the heart of Downing Street because he had “become a distraction from this government’s important work”.

He was previously a director of Labour Together, succeeding Keir Starmer’s controversial former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, and is facing accusations he employed a PR company to discredit reporters who were investigating party donations.

Mr Simons has always denied the allegations, claiming APCO had only been taken on to deal with a leak of confidential information from Labour Together, but demands for him to be sacked had increased.

His resignation is another blow for the embattled prime minister, and comes after Labour’s humiliating third place finish in the Gorton and Denton by-election, with MPs on the left of party using the probe into Mr Simons to exert further pressure.

Labour Together was at the centre of Sir Keir Starmer’s attempts to reclaim the Labour Party from Jeremy Corbyn and allies on the left.

Now left-wing Labour MPs Richard Burgon and John McDonnell have confirmed to The Independent that they have requested all documents relating to them from both the think tank and APCO.

Mr Simons had been cleared by ethics advisor Laurie Magnus but nevertheless said his continued place in the government was “a distraction”.

In his resignation letter, Mr Simons said: “I welcome that Sir Laurie Magnus has cleared me of breaching the Ministerial Code. It was important to me to complete this process to prove that I behaved with integrity and that my public statements have been truthful and honest.

“Nonetheless, it is clear that my remaining in office has now become a distraction from this government’s important work. For that reason, and with sadness and regret, I offer my resignation.”

He insisted that the work of journalists “sustains our democracy. With rigour and objectivity, they hold those in positions of power to account. In an age when trust in politics is low, anything perceived to be an attack on their integrity and independence deserves thorough investigation.”

But he added: “As I have said many times, I never sought to smear these newspaper reporters. I have not been able to go into detail on these claims while this investigation has been ongoing.”

Nevertheless, the resignation is unlikely to mean that the controversy will go away.

Labour MP Clive Lewis, one of the MPs who was believed to be targeted by Labour Together, warned that the failure to remove Mr Simons earlier reflected badly on a prime minister whose judgement is already being questioned.

He said: “Josh Simons should have resigned weeks ago. Failing that, he should have been dismissed. That he wasn’t speaks volumes.

“A prime minister who is serious about standards doesn’t wait for an ethics adviser to state the obvious. Sir Laurie Magnus has now concluded what many could see from the start: that a minister attempted to undermine and smear journalists for doing their job. Asking questions. Holding power to account.

“That is not a grey area. It is a basic test of democratic instinct.

“Instead of acting decisively, the prime minister chose to wait. He chose process over principle. And in doing so, he projected weakness where clarity was required.”

He added: “History rarely remembers the technicalities or the delays. It remembers whether leaders were prepared to make simple moral decisions when they mattered. The question now is why the prime minister felt unable to act himself, and why he needed cover to do what should have been done from the outset.”

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch also blasted Sir Keir for failing to sack Mr Simons and insisted there are still questions to answer.

She said: “Keir Starmer has used the conflict in the Middle East to sneak out yet another ministerial resignation. Another time he’s lacked the backbone to sack a minister who was obviously in the wrong.

“Josh Simons was in charge of a group that deliberately smeared journalists, even using a journalist’s Jewish faith to call him into question. Labour hasn’t changed.

“The ‘think tank’ Labour Together has donated or provided support to over 100 Labour MPs, including many of the cabinet. Their former staff members are in positions of influence across government, including serving as civil servants. Simons has resigned so it’s clear Labour Together is utterly finished as an organisation. Keir Starmer must tell us immediately if he will now end Labour Together’s links with his government and return the tainted money they’ve donated.”

The subject access request by a number of Labour MPs who were allied to Mr Corbyn is aimed at looking at the role of Labour Together in forcing him out and installing Sir Keir as leader.

Added to that the question marks over treatment of journalists came at a time when Sir Keir has been accused of trying to reduce press access in the Commons and to his government.

Since the new year his government cancelled one of the daily lobby press briefings and he has directed a number of the questions at press conferences to Labour friendly “social media influencers” instead of journalists.

Sir Keir thanked Mr Simon in his response to the resignation, adding: “As you note in your letter, freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy. The government remains firmly committed to upholding and protecting that freedom. It is essential that journalists are able to carry out their work without fear or favour, including holding politicians of all parties to account on behalf of the public we serve.”

A Cabinet Office source added: “In stepping aside despite being cleared, Josh has shown he’s the type of person to take responsibility and put the long term direction of the government first. He’ll not give up his energy in driving the party and this country forward.”

Man dies after skydive in Devon, police say

A 49-year-old man has died after a skydive in Devon, police say.

Emergency services were called to Dunkeswell Aerodrome, Honiton, at around 1 p.m. Saturday due to concerns for the welfare of a skydiver.

The man was pronounced dead at the scene and his family have been informed.

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said scene guards remain in place and inquiries are ongoing into the incident.

The spokesman said: “Police were called to Dunkeswell Aerodrome just before 1 p.m. today, Saturday 28 February, following concerns for the welfare of a male skydiver.

“Emergency services attended the scene, where sadly a 49-year-old man was confirmed deceased.

“His family have been informed.”

Mother-of-four Belinda Taylor, 48, from Totnes, Devon, and Adam Harrison, 30, from Bournemouth, Dorset, died while skydiving in the area of Dunkeswell Aerodrome in June last year.

The site is located in the Blackdown Hills and advertises activities including skydiving, wing walking and helicopter training.

Police give update on Ian Huntley after prison attack with metal bar

Soham killer Ian Huntley remains in a serious condition in hospital, two days after he was attacked with a metal bar by another inmate at a maximum security prison.

Durham Constabulary confirmed on Saturday morning that his condition had not changed overnight. A spokesperson stated: “The 52-year-old man remains in hospital in a serious condition, there have been no changes overnight.” The assault took place in the jail’s workshop.

According to reports, triple killer Anthony Russell allegedly shouted “I’ve done it, I’ve done it” after Huntley, 52, was repeatedly smashed over the head at HMP Frankland, Durham, on Thursday morning.

The force declined to identify the suspect but said on Thursday that a man in his mid-40s had been detained in the prison, but had not yet been arrested.

Former caretaker Huntley killed 10-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman after they left a family barbecue to buy sweets in Soham, Cambridgeshire, on August 4 2002, then dumped their bodies in a ditch.

Russell was sentenced to a whole life tariff in 2021 for the murders of Julie Williams, 58, and her son David Williams, 32, at separate flats in Coventry, and pregnant 31-year-old Nicole McGregor, who was found in woodland near Leamington Spa three days later.

Russell also raped Ms McGregor.

Thursday’s assault was the latest attempt on Huntley’s life and he was thought to have been kept under close observation to prevent similar attacks.

In 2010, robber Damien Fowkes slashed him with a home-made weapon, causing a “severe, gaping cut to the left side of his neck” with a 7in (18cm) wound which required 21 stitches.

Fowkes asked a prison officer: “Is he dead? I hope so.”

He described Huntley as a “notorious child killer, both inside prison and in society in general”.

Huntley is serving a life sentence with a recommendation that he serves at least 40 years for the Soham murders.

Why the King’s visit to America could be the big moment of jeopardy

President Donald Trump slouches forward, hands clasped in front of him, as Sir Keir Starmer, seated next to him, pulls an envelope from his suit jacket. “It’s my pleasure to bring, from His Majesty the King, a letter,” he says. “An invitation for a second state visit. This is really special. This has never happened before. It’s unprecedented.”

To some, that scene from February last year might have looked like a masterstroke of pragmatic diplomacy by Sir Keir – a knowing wink from the Brits that he was playing his Trump card, appealing to the president’s ego. But as King Charles prepares for his own reciprocal visit to Washington this April, the first by a British sovereign in nearly two decades, it’s fair to say that the diplomatic landscape has shifted dramatically.

In fact, the timing for the King could not be more fraught. Just last week, his brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office – the result of an investigation into whether he abused his position as a UK trade envoy to pass confidential information to the late paedophile sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The event reignited the Epstein scandal just as Charles prepares to break bread with a president who was once a fixture of that same social circle.

The spectre of awkward questions from lawyers for Epstein’s survivors, members of Congress, and journalists now looms over the visit. The US Representative Robert Garcia, who in November called on Mountbatten-Windsor to testify before Congress, described Andrew’s arrest as an “enormous step forward” and has questioned why the US Department of Justice has not shown the same urgency.

“It’s time for the United States to end this White House cover-up,” he said. “President Trump and his Epstein administration are not above the law.”

A Palace statement that Charles III’s “thoughts and sympathies have been, and remain with, the victims of any and all forms of abuse” may not satisfy those in Washington, who believe the King should now publicly urge his younger brother to assist US authorities. With the Clintons having agreed to submit their testimonies to the House Oversight Committee, the questions about why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor isn’t doing the same are likely to increase. Yet the mere suggestion that Charles publicly press Mountbatten-Windsor to testify places him in a perilous position, raising difficult questions about the boundaries between family, accountability, and protecting the Crown.

In Washington, there is little of the reflexive deference that surrounds the monarchy at home. American political reporters – and British correspondents in the US – operate at a greater remove; here, an unanswered question could prove a provocation that invites a louder, more public demand for the truth.

And this isn’t the only problem on the horizon for Charles. For many, the visit is no longer a celebration of the Special Relationship, but a show of political appeasement of a controversial administration that is leaning more towards authoritarian instincts every day. Steve Schmidt, a former Republican political strategist and founder of the anti-Trump political action committee The Lincoln Project, is among those leading a growing chorus demanding the King stay home. Otherwise, Schmidt says, the result will be “brutal” humiliation – something he promises to personally guarantee.

This year – America’s 250th birthday – was supposed to be a moment of national reflection and celebration of democracy. Instead, it has become a flashpoint. In the wake of the ICE killings of innocent American citizens and growing tensions domestically and internationally, for Schmidt and many others, this is an administration that is betraying the very values the 250th anniversary of American independence is meant to celebrate.

And he sees the spectre of Jeffrey Epstein hanging over the royal visit, adding to this toxic picture. With emboldened victim advocacy groups and lawmakers now calling for the former prince to testify before a US truth commission, Schmidt says the juxtaposition is jarring: while one brother faces police questioning over his ties to a paedophile ring, the other is set to be feted at a White House where the host’s own past associations with Epstein are well known.

“Look at what has transpired since then,” Schmidt tells The Independent. “An American president has threatened to wage war on Nato, to take by force territory of the kingdom of Denmark, and has unsettled profoundly the world order. America is facing a profound crisis in the 250th year of its independence.

“History here matters,” he says. “The first British sovereign to step foot on American soil was Charles’s grandfather, George VI. And when he did so in 1938, there was no special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. It was a country filled with Irishmen who had no affection whatsoever for the British crown.

“Franklin Roosevelt curated every aspect of that visit, which included travelling up the Potomac River on the presidential yacht to Mount Vernon, where George VI entered the tomb of George Washington and paid his respects.”

“The greatest American invention, many of us believe, is the peaceful transfer of power, which continued uninterrupted from 1797 until 2020,” Schmidt says. “Donald Trump lost that election. His lies about it being stolen … have poured acid on the cornerstone of the country.”

Schmidt points to this history as a warning. Where Roosevelt used the monarchy to build an alliance against fascism, he argues that the current administration intends to use Charles as a propaganda tool.

“Trump, who was a close associate and friend of Epstein, is hanging banners of himself off the Justice Department,” Schmidt says, referring to the 40-foot Make America Safe Again sign containing a dark-hued portrait of Trump, which was unfurled last week and which critics said was reminiscent of authoritarian “leader-cult” propaganda. “There are men shooting American citizens in the back. Now is not the time for a British sovereign to come and serve as a propaganda tool for this,” Schmidt says.

And not only could the King be loudly lobbied by Epstein’s victims, but Schmidt also warns that if the King proceeds, the response from his own group will also be brutal and humiliating. The Lincoln Project built its brand on scathing, high-production-value ads targeting Trump during the 2020 election cycle, drawing widespread media attention and even fury from Trump himself. “They should call it the Loser’s Project,” he once said. He is now promising the same treatment to the King should he proceed with his trip in April.

No longer with the Lincoln Project, Schmidt now helps run The Save America Movement, a nonprofit focused on “defending democracy and restoring common sense.” And he says: “If the King comes to America in April, he is coming in support of a man who is defiling American values by choice. And if he makes that decision, he will be greeted with an advertising campaign that will boggle the British imagination.”

Asked for specifics, Schmidt says: “You should imagine billboards in Times Square that have Charles and Camilla and Donald and Melania and Epstein and Ghislaine, right? Remember when Charles wanted to be a tampon for Camilla? It will be brutal. It will be humiliating,” he says, referring to the “Tampongate” scandal, in which a private, intimate 1989 phone call between then-Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, intercepted by an amateur radio enthusiast and leaked to the Daily Mirror, became a national embarrassment.

“We will also ask the question: what did the King know – and when did he know it – about his brother? We’ll play by the First Amendment; by American rules. The First Amendment is absolute, and it will be a public relations disaster that exceeds anything known by the Crown. Our goal is not to disrespect the British sovereign. Our goal is not to humiliate the King of England. But we will do so in defence of American liberty.”

While the American political media is often accused of being servile, Schmidt believes the truth will find its way through a “raging torrent” of British reporting. The stakes, he says, involve the very credibility of the Crown.

And lawmakers are ready to show their teeth, too. While Congress lacks the statutory power to compel a foreign citizen to testify, any formal subpoena would be triggered if Mountbatten-Windsor ever sets foot on US soil. And a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) could petition British courts to force a deposition on UK soil in any criminal investigation. If Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives (and/or Senate) in November, the current polite requests for interviews are likely to be replaced by a barrage of Oversight Committee subpoenas and televised hearings focused on the Epstein files.

Palace insiders will be strategising for all events in this hostile atmosphere that is just as febrile in the UK, too. Charles leaves for Washington at a time when grassroots campaigns are loudly calling for a total boycott of US products and even a UK withdrawal from the 2026 World Cup.

This domestic pressure forces the King into an impossible choice if he goes through with his US visit: he must act as a diplomat tasked with protecting British business interests, yet risks being seen by a younger generation of his subjects – and many in the US – as an enabler of an administration they find repugnant.

To a generation accustomed to the advocacy of the California Sussexes, it might feel strange that the guest of the White House keeps his counsel bound by diplomatic royal neutrality and constitutional constraint.

Yet none of this will come as a surprise to a King who has spent a lifetime observing the highwire act of royal diplomacy. While the current climate may be uniquely hostile, Charles has a track record of making deft moves in the shadows of political chaos. Last year, after Trump’s high-profile clash with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, it was he who stepped into the breach, quietly inviting the Ukrainian leader to Sandringham a few days later. It was a masterclass in royal “soft power”, signalling British solidarity without a word of public rebuke to the White House.

Supporters argue that the King’s decisive moves to strip his brother of his remaining titles and privileges show a monarch willing to put the integrity of the institution above personal sentiment.

Charles is also banking on a side of America that Steve Schmidt’s billboards ignore: the vast, quiet contingent of American royalists; the same people who flew across the Atlantic for the Queen’s funeral and who still view the British sovereign as a rare symbol of stability. Perhaps for them, the pomp and circumstance of a royal visit is not a political endorsement but a welcome reprieve from the nightmare at home.

As the April date approaches, the question remains: will Charles be able to use that unique heritage to endear himself to a nation, or will he find himself a pawn in a crisis engulfing the establishment in both London and Washington? For Steve Schmidt, the answer is simple. For the King’s advisers, who are currently strategising for every eventuality, it is anything but.

Zelensky suggests peace talks could be postponed amid Middle East attacks

Volodymyr Zelensky has suggested that US-brokered peace talks could be postponed due to the attacks throughout the Middle East.

The Ukrainian president said: “Depending on the security situation and real diplomatic possibilities, the time and place of the next meeting of our team and the US team – the meeting with the Russians – will be determined.”

Trilateral discussions between Kyiv, Moscow, and Washington were expected to be held in Abu Dhabi next week.

The possible delay to talks comes after the US and Israel launched strikes on Tehran on Saturday, provoking Iranian attacks throughout the region.

It follows Zelensky’s calls for the Trump administration to ramp up its efforts in ending Russia’s four-year-long invasion of Ukraine.

In an interview with Sky News, he said: “The United States is even more stronger than they think about themselves… And they really have pressure on Putin. They can stop this war.”

He said that he and Donald Trump agreed that the next session of trilateral talks in March on a war settlement should lead to a meeting of the countries’ leaders.

Idyllic beaches and vivid sunsets: Relaxing Spanish island escapes

How Liverpool turned set-piece weakness into strength to beat West Ham

This was the sort of scoreline Liverpool might have envisaged posting rather more often when they spent nine-figure sums on the attacking talents of Alexander Isak and Florian Wirtz. Except that, as they scored five times in a league game for the first time since clinching the title by demolishing Tottenham, the two £100m men were absent, both injured.

They didn’t need the German’s creativity to be prolific, or the Swede’s speed. Rather, they may have underlined one of Arne Slot’s mantras. During their autumnal slump, the Liverpool head coach said that unlocking a defence often involved a moment of magic or a set-piece. Well as Hugo Ekitike and Dominik Szoboszlai played, Liverpool were not magical. But the team who were statistically the worst in the division at set-pieces in the first half of the season may now be officially the best. Directly or indirectly, they scored from three before the break.

A bad afternoon for Nuno Espirito Santo was perhaps a worse one for Aaron Briggs. When Liverpool fired their set-piece coach at the end of December, it was a response to a regular shortcoming. Now Slot need not bemoan their “set-piece balance”, to borrow his phrase, with such regularity. “There was a time when we were 23 goals behind Arsenal, including penalties, and we have closed the gap a bit,” smiled Slot.

He could savour the set-pieces that beat West Ham United. “It is very pleasing,” he added. “The first half of the season, almost every set-piece we conceded went in. We start scoring from set-pieces and things start looking brighter and better than when you don’t.”

They have turned a corner when it comes to corners. Perhaps in a way that leaves Briggs – who was not hired as a set-piece specialist anyway – looking luckless, given that the first and third goals stemmed from second-phase situations. Maybe the luck is evening itself out over the season for Liverpool, who also benefited from an own goal; just not for Briggs. “Things went back to normal,” reflected Slot. “Maybe one or two small details have changed defensively and offensively.” Not much, he argued, though there is a difference in the personnel in the dugout.

Liverpool’s set-piece record is not perfect without Briggs; they conceded to a West Ham corner, headed in by the unmarked Taty Castellanos. Yet as Liverpool went fifth, returning to the probable Champions League spots for the first time in a month, they now top another table: for most set-piece goals in 2026, with nine. They became just the second team in Premier League history to score three goals from corners in a first half.

Their second may have come straight from the training ground, if not from the most intricate of routines. Szoboszlai simply aimed his corner at Virgil van Dijk, who headed it in. West Ham had their chances to clear the corners for the first and third. The deadlock was broken when, after a bout of head tennis, Ryan Gravenberch picked out Ekitike, who hooked in a low half-volley, though it took a deflection.

The Frenchman ended with two assists to accompany his goal and teed up Alexis Mac Allister to volley in their third and his second in a week. There should have been a fourth set-piece goal, Cody Gakpo slicing a shot horribly wide after West Ham contrived to miss Joe Gomez’s long throw. Instead, the Dutchman ended his goal drought via a touch off Aaron Wan-Bissaka, getting his first in eight games. Slot has resisted the clamour to start Rio Ngumoha and was rewarded by Gakpo’s return to the scoresheet.

Their fifth goal came five minutes into Jeremie Frimpong’s comeback after a month out. His low cross was turned into his own net by Axel Disasi. It may have been a familiar feeling for West Ham, who have conceded five goals in three games against Liverpool in Slot’s relatively brief reign, who have only won once at Anfield since 1963 and who may not return here next season.

They, too, can testify to the significance of corners. “We really made mistakes from set-pieces,” said Nuno. “It is frustrating as a coaching staff. It is something we have been putting a lot of effort and time to put it right.” Instead, they got it wrong. No side has conceded from more this season, and it threatens to be their undoing.

None have fewer clean sheets and they were behind inside five minutes. Thereafter, Liverpool lacked control, but scorelines shape impressions. Slot had received congratulations for Liverpool’s display against West Ham but said: “In my opinion we have played better when we lost and better when we conceded from set-pieces.”

And Nuno recognised how his argument looked illogical. “Maybe it is absurd to say it is a good performance when you lose 5-2,” said the West Ham manager. “But there were a lot of positives.” His side had an attacking threat. Liverpool conceded for the first time in four games, Tomas Soucek sliding in to convert the low cross El-Hadji Diouf drilled in. Alisson saved well from Crysencio Summerville and Castellanos headed in Jarrod Bowen’s resulting corner. West Ham finished with the higher expected goals score. In the set-piece league, it mattered little.

Brazilian national left fake stick of dynamite outside MI5 HQ

A terror alert was triggered in central London when a failed asylum seeker left a fake stick of dynamite outside the MI5 headquarters. Brazilian national Julian Valente Pereira, 32, staged the protest at Thames House, the secret services base, just a day after receiving news of his impending deportation from the UK.

CCTV footage captured Pereira pushing paperwork related to his immigration case through the building’s doors. He then retrieved the apparent “dynamite” from his bag. Initially, he tossed the object onto the pavement, allowing a CCTV operator to zoom in and reveal what appeared to be a fuse protruding from the brown cylinder. Pereira subsequently repositioned the item, propping it against the MI5 HQ doors, with a green cigarette lighter placed conspicuously nearby.

A counter terrorism bomb expert was called in, and it was then discovered Pereira had used rolled-up A4 paper, brown masking tape, and string to create the fake dynamite.

The incident happened on January 1, the day after Pereira’s final appeal for asylum had been dismissed by a judge.

After a trial at City of London Magistrates’ Court, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring found Pereira guilty of carrying out a bomb hoax, concluding he had wanted those watching to believe the device was real.

Pereira has been remanded into custody until sentencing on April 1, and the footage of the incident has now been released by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Prosecutor Shannon Revel told the trial Pereira has admitted he wanted “maximum attention” on his complaints against the Home Office, after a long-running failed bid for asylum.

“No-one was going to pay attention to this act if they thought it was masking tape and paper,” she said.

“The attention he desperately wanted on January 1 is only achieved by the fact that someone believed that object could explode.”

Pereira came to the UK with permission to work in July 2018 and has remained in the country illegally since February 2019.

“The defendant attended Thames House in Millbank, knowing it to be the headquarters of the security services MI5,” said Ms Revel.

“He tried to open the doors of the building without success.

“He started to push pieces of paper between the closed doors that were locked.

“He took an item fashioned from paper, string and masking tape out of his jacket pocket.

“The object was designed to look like a stick of dynamite.”

Giving evidence, Pereira said he left the object at the front of MI5 because he wanted to “catch the attention” of the security services.

“I swear it wasn’t my intention to cause any disruption on Vauxhall Bridge,” he said.

He told the court he had also visited Buckingham Palace to throw a bag containing a copy of the immigration ruling and a knife stabbed through his ID inside the perimeter gates.

In messages read out during the trial, Pereira had told a friend of his plan.

“I’m going to Buckingham Palace with a knife and one pen drive,” he wrote, adding: “All the information is inside the pen drive.”

When he was told to “stop being an idiot”, Pereira wrote: “I’m going to try and get attention.

“I’m going to throw the bag into Buckingham Palace.”

In a note on his phone from August 2025, Pereira wrote about “MI5 terrorising people inside hotels”, and added: “I need to see the King.”

He also said he planned to “give information” to the Archbishop of Canterbury as a precaution.

When giving evidence, Pereira insisted the device he left outside MI5 would not have been mistaken for an explosive, but added: “The news inside was dynamite.”

Pereira was arrested in his room at an asylum hotel in Uxbridge, west London, and told officers about his “long and tireless battle with the Home Office to try to attain asylum”, said the prosecutor.

The court heard that Pereira made allegations of Home Office “corruption”, claimed illegal immigrants are employed by the Government department, and said those in the system are living in “squalor”.

Judge Goldspring was also told that Pereira handed himself in to police as an overstayer in October 2020, but later sought asylum after being told to leave the UK.

He was placed in asylum seeker accommodation in June 2021, asylum was refused in 2023, and his appeal against that decision was rejected by a judge on December 31 2025.

The court heard that Pereira’s paid-for accommodation was withdrawn on January 9.

In his police interview, he told officers he has schizophrenia and had been hearing voices in his head.

He denied carrying out a bomb hoax by placing an article with intent.

The judge asked for reports on Pereira’s mental health and risk of reoffending, and warned that he may be jailed or sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.