Developments in Levi Walker Appeal

Police chiefs investigated for misconduct over gangland killing case

  Criminal inquiry – managed and controlled by IPCC – under way in relation to murder investigation by Staffordshire police

• Vikram Dodd
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 22 December 2011 23.35 GMT
• Article history

Four police chiefs have been placed under criminal investigation over allegations of misconduct relating to a gangland killing case. Photograph: Arthur Turner/Alamy

 

Four police chiefs, including the national lead on ethics in policing, have been placed under criminal investigation over allegations of misconduct, the Guardian has learned.

Formal notices of investigation were served on the senior officers, who are in positions of command at three different forces, earlier this month.

The allegations relate to a murder investigation by Staffordshire police, where all four had previously served, into a gangland killing. In 2008 five men received sentences totalling 135 years after Kevin Nunes was murdered. He was taken to a country lane where he was shot dead in a drugs feud.

The investigation into the police chiefs, managed and controlled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), concerns allegations that material and evidence that could have affected the trial were withheld from the prosecution and court. The official body that examines alleged miscarriages of justice is carrying out its own investigation into the case.

Nine officers have been told they are under investigation. The issuing of notices of investigation into an officer's conduct is not meant to imply any wrongdoing.

The allegations being examined by the investigation include conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in public office.

The senior officers under investigation include Adrian Lee, chief constable of Northamptonshire, who is also the lead on ethics and policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers. Suzette Davenport, deputy chief constable of Northamptonshire, is also under investigation. The inquiry is also examining the conduct of Jane Sawyers, assistant chief constable with the Staffordshire force, and Marcus Beale, assistant chief constable with the West Midlands force.

The investigation is being carried out by the chief constable of Derbyshire, Mick Creedon, on behalf of the IPCC, which retains control and direction of the inquiry.

The men convicted of the murder have lodged a challenge to their convictions with the court of appeal, which in turn asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate issues of disclosure in the original trial. The CCRC is the body responsible for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice.

The Guardian has learned that the investigation into the officers began after material uncovered by the CCRC inquiry was referred to the IPCC, which is a police watchdog.

The four police chiefs have not been suspended from duty or arrested. It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the IPCC to investigate four officers of the most senior ranks over the same incident.

Two of the five men convicted of the murder were Adam Joof and Antonio Christie. Levi Walker was alleged by the crown to have taken Nunes, 20, to face the firing squad in 2002 and was convicted of murder, as were Owen Crooks and Michael Osbourne. Nunes, a talented footballer who had been on the books of Tottenham Hotspur, was shot five times. The convictions were gained after one man who was present, Simeon Taylor, gave evidence for the crown.

Adrian Lee became the head of the Northamptonshire force in 2009, which he joined from Staffordshire. There he was assistant chief constable, being promoted to deputy, before becoming Staffordshire's temporary chief constable.

The IPCC refused to elaborate on the detail of the investigation, but said: "We can confirm the Independent Police Complaints Commission is managing an investigation into allegations against a number of former and serving Staffordshire police officers.

"The investigation is being carried out by the chief constable of Derbyshire, Mick Creedon, under the direction and control of the IPCC. His investigation began following a request from the Criminal Cases Review Commission who are conducting an inquiry on behalf of the court of appeal in relation to an ongoing appeal. Subsequently the chief constable's investigation raised matters which were referred to the IPCC. As matters are sub judice pending the appeal case we cannot provide further information at present."

The CCRC said: "We confirm that the Criminal Cases Review Commission is investigating matters on behalf of the court of appeal in relation to an ongoing appeal involving Joof and others."

Northamptonshire police authority said: "We can confirm that allegations have been made in relation to chief constable Adrian Lee and deputy chief constable Suzette Davenport, who both served in Staffordshire police. The authority has considered information provided by the IPCC and remains completely confident in both the chief constable and deputy chief constable."

Staffordshire police authority said: "We can confirm that a serving chief officer has been served with a notice advising them that their conduct is subject to investigation. Such notices are not judgmental in any way and we need to let the ongoing investigation run its course and establish the facts.

"As a result, the police authority has taken the decision not to suspend the officer. The force and authority are continuing to fully cooperate with the IPCC and its investigation team."

West Midlands police said: "The matter has been considered by the chief constable and West Midlands police authority and the officer concerned has not been suspended. As always, West Midlands police will co-operate fully with the IPCC investigation."

Lee is the second chief constable currently under investigation by the IPCC. In a wholly separate case, the police watchdog is examining fraud and corruption allegations against Sean Price, who heads the Cleveland force. He was arrested and bailed, and has been suspended from duty. He denies any wrongdoing.

The notices issued to the police chiefs, known as regulation 14 notices, inform them that their conduct is under investigation.

Court orders investigation in Kevin Lane Case

Judge orders review of 'explosive' documents that could clear Kevin Lane

  Lawyers believe papers could provide strong grounds for appeal in case of man jailed for 1994 hitman murder

• Duncan Campbell
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 November 2011 10.51 GMT

 

Kevin Lane was jailed for life in 1996 for the murder of Robert Magill. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

The court of appeal has instructed the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to investigate the authenticity of "explosive" documents in the case of Kevin Lane, jailed for life for a 1994 hitman murder. Lord Justice Hughes has asked the CCRC to deliver a progress report on this and other aspects of the case by the end of January.

The move was greeted by Lane's legal team and supporters as a step forward to what they hope will be an appeal.

During an hour-long hearing, Joel Bennathan, QC for Lane, told the court that documents, which number 70 pages, had been sent anonymously to Lane's lawyers. If authentic, they would be very strong grounds for the granting of an appeal.

Lane was jailed for life at the Old Bailey in 1996 for the murder of Robert Magill in Chorleywood, Hertfordshire. Magill was shot dead while out walking his dog by two men who fled in a BMW. Lane was later arrested and stood trial with another man, Roger Vincent, who was cleared. Vincent and another man have since been convicted of another unconnected contract killing.

The court heard that regardless of the papers, which Lane's lawyer, Maslen Merchant, has described as "explosive", there were many other aspects of the case that merited referral for appeal. One of the investigating officers in the murder case, Detective Inspector Christopher Spackman, had subsequently been convicted of serious offences of dishonesty and misconduct.

"What cannot be gainsaid is that Mr Spackman … interfered in the criminal justice system," said Bennathan. Spackman's involvement in the murder inquiry and the later conviction of Vincent in another case were the "twin pillars" of the case for Lane, he said.

Hughes also required the CCRC to investigate other aspects of the case, including what had happened to a black bin liner on which Lane's fingerprints had been found. The CCRC was asked to report on its progress by 31 January.

Details were also sought of whether Vincent had ever been paid damages for false imprisonment in connection with the Magill case.

The hearing was attended by many of Lane's supporters, some of them wearing Free Kevin Lane T-shirts, and by members of his family.

There was a hung jury at Lane's first trial but he was convicted by a 10-2 majority at a subsequent trial. He is now in Rye Hill prison, serving a recommended minimum sentence of 18 years.

The CCRC has reviewed the case three times, with the latest review initiated three years ago but not yet completed.

Lane's case was one of the first to be covered by the Guardian's Justice on Trial site and is to be the subject of a documentary.

© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Property Rights for Unmarried Couples

Supreme court rules on property rights

for unmarried couples

  Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent

  guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 November 2011 17.28 GMT

Leonard Kernott and Patricia Jones outside the supreme court in London. The fate of the former couple's bungalow has been followed by family lawyers. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

A supreme court judgment awarding a female hairdresser the overwhelming share of an Essex bungalow has redefined the property rights of unmarried couples and triggered calls for legal reform.

The unexpected ruling in the long-running case of Kernott v Jones overturns previous, strict interpretations of property titles and exposes the inadequacies of what one legal expert described as a "fairly incomprehensible" area of the law.

There are more than two million unmarried couples living together in England and Wales; almost 50% of children are now born outside marriage.

The unanimous decision by five supreme court justices makes it clear that even though the home was registered in the names of both the man and the woman, judges are permitted to substitute a fairer division of possessions.

Earlier this autumn the government announced it would not take up the Law Commission's recommendations on reforming the rules governing property rights of cohabitees in this parliament. Specialists in family law, however, warned more split-ups will now be contested and called for urgent parliamentary reform.

Leonard Kernott and Patricia Jones separated in 1993 after living together in their property in Thundersley, Essex, for eight years. The supreme court was asked whether the assets should be shared 50/50 or predominantly allocated to the woman, who has paid all of the mortgage for the past 13 years.

Kernott, 51, an ice cream salesman, moved out after the breakup, leaving Jones, 56, a hairdresser, to pay the mortgage, maintain the house – valued at £245,000 in 2008 – and raise the couple's two children, the court was told.

The court heard Kernott, now of Benfleet, Essex, waited until his children were grown before making a claim on his old home in 2006. In 2008, a county court judge sitting in Southend ruled that Jones should get 90% of the value of the house and her former partner 10%. That decision was upheld by the high court in London in 2009.

But last year the court of appeal overturned the lower courts' rulings, deciding that Kernott was entitled to half the value of the house because the couple owned equal shares when they separated and neither had since done anything to change the situation.

In restoring the county court order for sharing the assets, Lord Walker and Lady Hale said it was a "… logical inference that [the couple] intended [Kernott's] interest in Badger Hall Avenue should crystallise" in 1995, when they took the house off the market and cashed in an insurance policy, so that Kernott was able to buy a house in his own name.

The presumption of joint beneficial ownership could be rebutted by evidence that it was not, or ceased to be, the common intention of the parties to hold the property jointly, the justices said.

Another supreme court justice, Lord Wilson, added: "In the light of the continued failure of parliament to confer upon the courts limited redistributive powers in relation to the property of each party upon the breakdown of a non-marital relationship, I warmly applaud [this] development of the law of equity."

Lord Kerr said that the split of 90% and 10% originally imposed by a county court judge was "a fair one as between the parties".

Speaking after the ruling, Kernott said he accepted the judgment and hoped to move on with his life. "I never wanted 50%," he said. "I thought 25% would be a fair reflection of what I had put into the property.

"When I lived there, I paid for everything and I completely refurbished the place. I have been painted as this ogre who walked out on his family. I love my family. I didn't want to leave but it was made unbearable for me to stay. It's a sad day for men who are left in a similar position to me and it feels like the law will always side with the woman."

Jones's solicitor, Ivan Sampson, said: "She is absolutely delighted – and I'm delighted for her. It seemed to be that the case was decided on the facts."

Many solicitors, who had been expecting the court of appeal ruling to be ratified, welcomed the judgment as a fairer distribution of property. Victoria Francis, a solicitor at the law firm Speechly Bircham, said: "The supreme court's decision may go some way to addressing the injustices inherent in the current law affecting cohabitees but it does so at the cost of certainty and will surely lead to more litigation, as co-owners attempt to unscramble what is really a fairly incomprehensible area of the law unless you are a specialist in it. The law in this area is not fit for purpose."

"Couples should not assume that the legal pieces of paper that show co-ownership of a property are the end of the story. If one of them goes on to make a different arrangement, for example moving out or not paying the mortgage, then the court can and will adjust the original shares," said Alison Hawes, at the solicitors Irwin Mitchell.

A barrister and specialist family lawyer at Mills & Reeve, Joanna Grandfield, said: "The supreme court's decision approves the increasing tendency of the courts to avoid the harsh results of a strict interpretation of property law through the use of 'inferred intentions' as a means of getting round legally correct, but morally unfair results. Legislation needs to be introduced to reflect the society which it is supposed to serve."

Head of family law at Mishcon de Reya, Sandra Davis, said: "The continued failure of Parliament to introduce legislation which protects the property interests of the two million cohabiting couples in this country is a disgrace. It beggars belief that because of decades of parliamentary disinterest, Jones and Kernott have had to litigate, at significant expense, a dispute over the ownership of their family home in four separate courts."

The situation is different in Scotland where five years ago the devolved administration legislated to give cohabitees financial rights and obligations. Emma Collins, of law firm Weightmans said: "Despite many other countries, including Scotland, committing to cohabitation laws, the UK government remains reluctant and has confirmed that no cohabitation law reforms will be implemented in this parliamentary term. It is hoped that this ruling, alongside the Law Commission's detailed recommendations for a new statute, encourage the government to take the matter more seriously."

Read the full judgment here

Judgment giving 90% of house to woman who paid mortgage for 13 years has implications for millions of unmarried couples

The Justice Gap

A Pretty Poor Defence

  ANALYSIS: High profile miscarriage cases attract publicity because of corrupt police or dishonest or incompetent experts, writes Maslen Merchant; however, compare those relatively few cases with the number of cases which become miscarriages because of poor defence work. This is happening in every court every day to some degree. As the criminal legal aid budget is tightened it will only get worse. Conscientious, ethical, altruistic lawyers are now few and far between and the number of miscarriage cases rises proportionately.

Today’s criminal lawyer is a businessman first and foremost – practising law seems to be sandwiched somewhere in between accountancy, practice management and marketing.

Access to justice for a defendant in criminal proceedings is entirely dependent on the trial process being fair. This extends not only to the judiciary and the prosecuting authorities but also the defence lawyers. In my view, there are far too many defence lawyers who fail in their duty to their clients at very basic levels and who, therefore, undermine the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.

This is an extract from Wrongly Accused? Who is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justices due out later this month as part of the Justice Gap series. The whole article is here.

PHOTO: The ‘March for Justice’ on October 16th which highlighted the cases of Kevin Lane and John Twomey – you can read about it here. Kevin Lane was jailed for life for in 1996 for the murder of Robert Magill. You can find out more at www.justiceforkevinlane.com. Maslen is acting for Kevin Lane. Police are presently investigating the new material- see the Guardian. ‘We should have a substantive response to our grounds of appeal in about two weeks time,’ Maslen says; adding that there should be a hearing at the court of appeal some time in December.

70% of Brits don't have a will

Macmillan Cancer Support reports 70% of Brits don't have a will

01 Nov 2011

Macmillan Cancer Support has revealed that nearly half of the nation (46%) admit they don't like to talk about death at all and feel uncomfortable talking about their will. Two thirds (65%) say they haven't even discussed the subject with close friends or family.

The survey of 2,000 people also revealed that seven in ten (70%) have not even written a will or made plans for what they'll leave behind. To support the launch of 'Will Aid Month', Macmillan Cancer Support has partnered with Jasmine Birtles, financial expert and founder of Moneymagpie.com, to provide a set of tips on will writing, so people can ensure that all they care about and the causes that matter to them the most, are looked after.

Nine in ten (87%) are aware that they can leave a gift to charity in their will however only 38% would. Gifts in wills currently accounts for over 1/3 of Macmillan's funding, but only 7% of the UK population supports charities with a gift in their will. This compares to over 70% who support charities in their lifetime.

Sarah Lee, Legacies Manager at Macmillan commented: "Legacy giving is surrounded by many myths and misunderstandings which stop people from actively considering supporting charities in this way. By raising awareness of the ways in which people can leave gifts to charities in their wills we want to overcome these so that will-writing is discussed more openly and honestly. Gifts in wills are so important for Macmillan, large or small every gift makes a difference, we couldn’t do what we do without them."

Jasmine Birtles highlights the importance of making a will and keeping it updated as personal circumstances change. She said: "If you don't write a will, it can leave distressing, and often expensive problems for those who are left behind. It could also mean that people you wanted to look after end up being left out. I am supporting Macmillan Cancer Support in this matter because I want to encourage people to think about their will and make sure their assets go to people and causes they care about."

For more information on legacy giving, support on will writing or just a chat, interested parties can visit www.macmillan.org.uk/legacies or call Macmillan on 0800 107 4448.

  

About Macmillan Cancer Support:
Macmillan Cancer Support improves the lives of people affected by cancer, providing practical, medical, emotional and financial support. Working alongside people affected by cancer, Macmillan works to improve cancer care. One in three people will get cancer. Two million people are living with it. Macmillan can help those affected by cancer.

For more information, including cancer fundraising ideas, visit www.macmillan.org.uk or freephone 0808 808 0000 for an information pack.

Kevin Lane - Police Investigate Mystery Files

Mystery files cast doubt over verdict on Robert Magill gangland killing

Mystery files cast doubt over verdict on Robert Magill gangland killing

Kevin Lane has been in jail for 16 years after being found guilty of murder. But did police pervert the course of justice?

• Jamie Doward
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 8 October 2011 20.51 BST

Duncan Campbell outlines the compelling reasons to reopen the Kevin Lane case Link to this video

It was a notorious killing carried out one morning in a Hertfordshire backwater. Two men had approached Robert Magill as he walked his dog close to his home in Chorleywood on 13 October 1994. One of them was seen by several witnesses to pull out a shotgun and shoot Magill five times at point blank range. The final shot was delivered to the head as Magill lay prostrate.

As of today, Kevin Lane will have served 16 years and 255 days of a minimum 18-year sentence for carrying out what was seen as a classic contract killing. Lane was raised in the criminal underworld, but has always claimed he was innocent of this crime.

Many aspects of the case remain troubling and new evidence now threatens to blow apart not just Lane's conviction but the way in which it was achieved.

The Observer understands that a specialist team reporting to the Crown Prosecution Service is examining whether a clutch of confidential internal police files, apparently relating to the case and sent anonymously to Lane's lawyer, Maslen Merchant, are genuine.

The files, which have been seen by the Observer, appear to be copies of secret memos sent between a number of police officers involved in the case. For legal reasons, the evidence cannot be reproduced at the moment. But, if genuine, Lane's lawyers believe it would have a material effect on their client's appeal.

In their submission filed before the Court of Appeal, the lawyers claim the documents, "if genuine, demonstrate the most blatant, deliberate and… shocking, plot by police to pervert the course of justice and ensure the applicant's conviction for murder".

They would also illuminate the shadowy way in which the judicial system prosecuted contract killings, often having to go to great lengths to protect police sources who helped to secure convictions but were themselves closely connected to the criminal underworld.

Central to the prosecution case against Lane was his palm print, found on a plastic bin liner in which the murder weapon was said to have been carried. The liner was found in the boot of a car Lane admitted driving. Another article in the car's boot was tested and found to have traces of nitroglycerine on it, indicating the presence of a weapon.

Lane, who had travelled from Spain two weeks before the killing under a false name, claims he was at home at the time of the crime, but accepted he had borrowed the car about a week before the murder. His son's fingerprint was also found in the car, reinforcing Lane's claim that he had used it to ferry his family around.

A defence expert suggested the apparent presence of nitroglycerine could have come from an industrial nail gun. Lane said he had entered the country under a false name because the Department for Social Security had been after him in connection with a benefit claim.

But for Lane's supporters, the most troubling aspects of his case centre on the secrecy that has characterised it. Some evidence disclosed at Lane's retrial in 1996 was subjected to a public immunity interest order, meaning it was not shared with his legal team. For years, Lane's lawyers sought to establish the full contents of the suppressed material, who had authorised it, and why.

The new material, if genuine, answers many of their questions. Lane first stood trial in October 1995 with Roger Vincent, who was found not guilty of participating in Magill's murder by direction of the judge. A hung jury was unable to return a verdict on Lane.

Since Lane's conviction at his second trial, evidence has emerged showing Vincent had lengthy discussions with police officers shortly after his arrest. Statements shared with Lane's legal team by a detective sergeant, Christopher Spackman, also confirmed that Spackman had visited Vincent while he was on remand in HMP Woodhill.

Spackman was later jailed for conspiring with others to steal £160,000 from Hertfordshire police, money the married father of three paid into his lover's account.

The prosecutor at Spackman's trial claimed: "The lengths he went to, the lies he told and the documents that were forged would have been worthy of a seasoned fraudster."

Spackman's name also surfaced in a 2005 court of appeal case that quashed the conviction of two men, Nazeem Khan and Cameron Bashir, in a case involving credit card fraud. The court had heard Spackman had displayed "an ability to conduct complicated deceptions within a police environment".

On his website, Lane makes the extraordinary claim that before his first trial had finished, Spackman had visited Vincent's mother and told her that her son was coming home, but "Lane" would be found guilty. Spackman had also visited Vincent's mother's home twice after her son had been released.

Vincent sued Hertfordshire police for false imprisonment after his acquittal for the Magill killing. He alleged Spackman had offered him a deal to drop the case against him and pay him a reward if he turned Queen's Evidence. Spackman later insisted it was Vincent who had approached him to "do a deal".

It was not to be Vincent's last brush with the law. In August 2005 he and his friend David Smith were convicted of the 2003 killing of David King, who was shot 26 times with a Kalashnikov outside his gym in Hoddesdon, Herts.

Logs later released by the police showed that during the original Magill murder inquiry they had received more than 20 tip-offs claiming Vincent and Smith had been responsible. They were well known in the criminal world and were suspected of having carried out several killings.

Lane's lawyers believe that charting the relationship between Vincent and Spackman is crucial to the success of his appeal. The relationship certainly pre-dated the Magill murder. In 1992, it was Spackman who had liaised with Vincent when he gave evidence in the case of a man convicted of attempted murder and false imprisonment. Vincent received a commendation from the judge for his bravery in testifying.

Today Vincent is behind bars and refusing to shed light on the extent of his relationship with Spackman. Lane continues to protest his innocence from a category B prison, potentially putting his release date in jeopardy.

His hopes now rest on whether the internal police files mysteriously posted to his lawyers are real or sophisticated forgeries. Given the bewildering twists and turns in Lane's case, either conclusion is possible.

Kevin Lane murder case may be reheard as new evidence emerges.

Friday 2nd September 2011, The Guardian

Lawyers have applied to the court of appeal for the case to be reopened after receiving documents allegedly from police files.

The case of Kevin Lane, jailed for life for a 1994 hitman murder, could be dramatically reopened if documents sent anonymously to his lawyers, allegedly from police files, prove genuine. The papers are at the centre of an application for his case to be reheard.

Lane was jailed for life at the Old Bailey in 1996 for the murder of Robert Magill in Chorleywood, Hertfordshire. Magill was shot dead, while out walking his dog, by two men who fled in a BMW. Lane was later arrested and stood trial with another man, Roger Vincent, who was cleared.

The main evidence against Lane was a fingerprint found on an item in the boot of the getaway car. The jury could not reach a decision in his first trial, but he was convicted by a 10-2 majority at a subsequent trial. He has consistently protested his innocence.

In April this year, 70 pages of documents, supposedly detailing aspects of the case against Lane and containing details on informants, was sent to his lawyers, Hadgkiss, Hughes & Beale in Birmingham. As a result of the information contained within, and other unresolved aspects of the case, an application has been made to the court of appeal for the case to be heard and for Lane to be released on bail pending the appeal. He is now in Rye Hill prison, having served most of his recommended minimum sentence of 18 years in Frankland prison.

The court of appeal has passed the new evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service to assess whether the documents are genuine. The CPS confirmed that such a request had been made and that they have been asked to respond by 9 September.

Lane's case has been reviewed on three occasions by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), with the latest review initiated three years ago and still to be completed. Because the case has now gone to the court of appeal, the current review has been suspended.

"The Commission was informed on 18 August by Mr Lane's lawyers that they have now applied direct to the court of appeal for leave to appeal against his 1996 murder conviction," the CCRC said in a statement. "We have written to Mr Lane's legal [team] to let them know what this development means for our review of the case."

Maslen Merchant, Lane's legal representative, said : "If these documents are genuine, it shows beyond doubt that Kevin Lane is innocent."

The lengthy submission to the court of appeal, put forward by Joel Bennathan QC of Tooks chambers, argues that there are now "so many odd and troubling features" in the "exceptional case" that the granting of an appeal hearing is essential.

Lane has long argued that he has been the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice.

House Prices up 1.7% ... but not selling.

18th April 2011, Daily Mail
House sellers raised their asking prices by 1.7 per cent last month, but buyers are still thin on the ground, leading to a glut of unsold properties.It was the fourth consecutive month in which new sellers have increased asking prices. The increase means the average property on the market in England and Wales has a price tag of £235,822 - six per cent or £13,400 higher than at the end of last year.

But the leap in prices in March is due to misplaced optimism, as homes are not selling.
The mismatch between supply and demand led to the number of unsold properties on estate agents' books rising at its fastest level since May 2007, to an average of 74 homes per branch.

With interest rate likely to rise, vendors wanting to take advantage of the traditional spring window needed to adopt 'serious sales tactics'.

Now Incorporating Eyre & Co.

We are delighted to announce that, on 1^st February 2011, Hadgkiss Hughes & Beale incorporated the firm of Eyre & Co of Hall Green, and that Michael Eyre and Martin Luscombe have joined us in the partnership.

Michael and Martin will be based at the former premises of Eyre & Co.  The contact details are as follows :-

Hadgkiss Hughes & Beale,

1041 Stratford Road,

Hall Green,

Birmingham B28 8AS

Michael J. Eyre                                                 Martin A. Luscombe

Telephone 0121 778 2161                                  Telephone 0121 778 2161

Fax 0121 778 3290                                            Fax 0121 777 7942

Email michael@eyreco.co.uk                            Email martin@eyreco.co.uk

This is an exciting venture for both firms.  We have put together two long established practices, each with a loyal and dedicated team.  The merger gives us a strong presence in South Birmingham, and enables us to offer our valued clients a wider range of services with an enhanced level of support

West Midlands sees largest rise in asking prices as houses remain scarce

16th January 2011, Birmingham Post

Asking prices in the housing market edged ahead during January - with the West Midlands enjoying the biggest rises - as the number of homes being put up for sale fell to a two-year low, according to new research.

The 0.3 per cent rise in asking prices for properties in England and Wales during the five weeks to January 8 came after prices had fallen during five of the previous six months, dropping by 6.2 per cent during December and November alone.

But a shortage of homes being put up for sale, combined with a surge in demand from potential buyers, should help to underpin prices in popular areas in the run-up to the spring moving season.

An average of 9,159 properties a week were put up for sale during the five-week period, the lowest level since January 2009, and nearly half the 17,000 homes that were typically put on the market during January before the credit crunch struck.

There is a particular shortage of semi-detached homes, down 30 per cent on last year, while there are around 10 per cent fewer flats and terraced houses.

The heavy snow in December would have played some part in the low level of listings, and it would be important to see if the figures bounce back during the coming few weeks.

The figures suggest the current mismatch between supply and demand may be shifting back in favour of sellers, after a shortage of buyers had forced prices down.

Overall, asking prices are 0.4 per cent higher than they were a year ago at an average of £223,121.