Corey Edwards stood in Pen-y-bont Bro Morgannwg and appeared at national hustings shortly before stepping down

REFORM UK Senedd candidate Corey Edwards has stepped down from the upcoming election, just days after controversy over a photograph appearing to show him making a Nazi salute.

The party confirmed on Thursday (Mar 27) that Edwards had withdrawn from the race, citing mental health issues. A spokesperson said: “Corey Edwards has informed us that he is stepping down as a candidate for the Senedd election this May, citing issues with his mental health.

“We wish him well for the future and hope his privacy can be respected at this difficult time.”

Edwards had been selected as Reform UK’s lead candidate for Pen-y-bont Bro Morgannwg, meaning he was in a strong position to be elected if the party secured a seat in the constituency.

His withdrawal comes shortly after a photograph emerged, first published by Nation.Cymru, which appeared to show him performing a Nazi salute. Edwards said the image, taken in 2019, could be “misinterpreted” and claimed he had been imitating either a scene from Fawlty Towers or Welsh footballer Wayne Hennessey, who was previously involved in a similar controversy.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the image “looked terrible” but confirmed Edwards would not be removed as a candidate at the time, describing him as “a human being” and referencing the sitcom scene as context.

Edwards had also appeared publicly as a Reform representative at a national youth hustings event in Cardiff on Thursday (Mar 19), alongside politicians from other major parties.

In a statement, Edwards said: “Like many young people, I have made mistakes. But I am proud of the person I am today and the values I stand for.”

The Herald understands that Reform UK has not yet confirmed whether a replacement candidate will be selected for the constituency.

Judge rules expired licence does not invalidate insurance where driver is not disqualified

A HAKIN man has successfully overturned his conviction for driving without insurance in a case that could have wider implications for thousands of motorists.

Seventy-six-year-old Niall Taylor, of Haven Drive, won his appeal at Swansea Crown Court on Thursday (Mar 27), after the court ruled there was no case to answer on the insurance charge.

The court found that Taylor was insured in law at the time he was stopped, despite his driving licence having expired.

This is understood to be a landmark ruling on a point of law, directly addressing a long-standing assumption used in policing and prosecutions — that a driver whose licence has expired is automatically uninsured. The judgment provides rare clarification on how standard insurance wording should be interpreted in such cases, and may influence how similar prosecutions are handled in the future.

Key issue: licence expired but not disqualified

The case centred on an incident on January 18, 2023, when Taylor was stopped by police while driving a Vauxhall Zafira in Haverfordwest.

It was accepted that his driving licence had expired in November 2022 and had not yet been renewed, and Taylor did not challenge his conviction for driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence.

However, the appeal focused solely on whether he was also uninsured.

Certificate wording decisive

The court heard that Taylor held a valid insurance policy covering the date in question.

Crucially, the certificate of motor insurance stated that cover applied where the driver:

“holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified or prohibited by law from holding or obtaining such a licence.”

The court found that Taylor met this definition, as he had previously held a licence and was not disqualified or prohibited from obtaining one.

Judge relies on leading legal text

In a detailed ruling, the judge referred to Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences (32nd Edition), a leading legal authority, which states that policies using this wording commonly cover drivers even where a licence has expired.

The court also considered the case of Adams v Dunne (1978), which established that an insurance policy remains valid unless and until it is formally avoided.

The judge said that, in law, such policies remain effective even if they may later be considered “voidable” rather than void.

Prosecution evidence ‘insufficient’

The Crown had relied on evidence from an insurance company investigator, who said the policy might have been cancelled had the company known about the licence issue.

However, the court found this evidence did not establish that the policy was invalid at the time.

The judge noted that:

• the insurer had confirmed a policy existed,
• no full policy document had been produced, and
• the certificate itself clearly set out the relevant terms.

He concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that no valid insurance was in force.

Conviction quashed

Allowing the submission of no case to answer, the court ruled:

“We are satisfied that Mr Taylor did indeed have a certificate of motor insurance… which covered him to drive on the 18th of January 2023.”

The judge added that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, was not sufficient to justify a conviction.

Taylor’s conviction for driving without insurance was therefore quashed.

Wider implications

The ruling raises important questions about how insurance policies operate where a driving licence has expired — an issue affecting many motorists, particularly those over 70 who must renew their licences regularly.

The court’s interpretation suggests that, where a policy uses standard wording covering drivers who have previously held a licence and are not disqualified, insurance may still be valid despite administrative lapses.

Taylor’s separate conviction for driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence remains in place and was not part of the appeal.

He was asked to write to the court if he wanted to claim travelling expenses to cover the cost of transport for numerous times he has been to court regarding this matter.

Haverfordwest woman claimed fear of police and missing custody footage supported her case

A HAVERFORDWEST woman has lost her appeal against conviction after Swansea Crown Court ruled she had no lawful excuse for refusing to provide a blood sample — despite claims she feared police abuse and that missing custody footage would support her defence.

Sally Nolan, 52, of Three Meadows, appeared at Swansea Crown Court on Thursday (Mar 27) to challenge her conviction for failing to provide a specimen for analysis following her arrest in Johnston on Aug 15, 2025.

Missing footage dispute

At the start of the hearing, Nolan — representing herself — argued that police custody footage had not been disclosed. She said the material would show she was mistreated and had offered to provide a urine sample instead of blood.

The Crown told the court no such footage was available and that custody desk recordings are typically retained for around 28 days. Prosecutors added there was no record on the custody log of any mistreatment or of Nolan offering a urine sample.

The court proceeded with what the judge described as a fresh hearing.

Police stop and roadside test

The court heard PC Dylan Davis stopped Nolan’s vehicle after receiving information it was being driven by someone suspected of being under the influence of drugs.

Body-worn video footage showed the officer activating blue lights and intercepting Nolan’s car before pulling her over.

Nolan provided a roadside saliva test, which gave a positive indication for cannabis. The court heard this was not conclusive but justified her arrest and further testing.

Refusal captured on video

Footage played in court showed Nolan repeatedly refusing to provide a blood sample after being taken to custody.

The officer read out the required legal warnings, including that failure to provide a specimen could lead to prosecution.

Nolan replied: “I’m refusing, take me to court,” and later said: “No, because I don’t trust you or the NHS.”

The court also heard she told officers: “I do not consent to anything that you will do to me,” and even refused to accept a glass of water due to concerns it could be tampered with.

Defence: PTSD and mistrust

Giving evidence, Nolan said her refusal was based on a deep mistrust of police, which she linked to previous experiences.

“I don’t trust the police,” she told the court. “You can do any test you want, but you’re not putting a needle in my arm.”

She said she would have provided a urine sample and maintained she was not under the influence of drugs.

Nolan also told the court she believed she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, although she accepted she had no formal diagnosis.

Medical evidence rejected

A letter from her GP confirmed Nolan had not been diagnosed with PTSD, though she was experiencing anxiety and distress.

A healthcare professional present in custody told the court Nolan appeared physically well, understood the procedure, and had no medical condition that would justify refusing a blood sample.

The court heard recognised medical reasons could include conditions such as a clinically supported phobia, but no expert evidence had been provided in Nolan’s case.

Court’s ruling

Delivering judgment, the court said it accepted Nolan held genuine fears and mistrust of the authorities.

However, the judge ruled that a “reasonable excuse” must arise from a physical or mental inability to provide a specimen, or a real risk to health, and would normally require medical evidence.

The court found Nolan’s refusal was instead a willful refusal based on mistrust, which — even if genuinely held — could not amount to a lawful excuse.

The judge also rejected Nolan’s argument that she should have been offered a urine test, ruling that the law does not require police to give drivers a choice between blood and urine samples.

Refusing the appeal, the judge said: “We find that you did not have a reasonable excuse defined by law. Therefore, we refuse the appeal.”

Nolan replied: “That’s all I wanted. A fair trial.”

Sentence and finances

Magistrates had previously imposed an 18-month driving disqualification, a £300 fine, £650 in prosecution costs and a £120 surcharge.

The Crown Court then heard Nolan receives around £1,300 a month in Universal Credit, alongside ongoing household and vehicle costs.

The court confirmed that the penalty imposed at the lower court was correct. Nolan must pay £250 costs to the CPS after losing the appeal.

She was ordered to pay at £20 a month to which she told the judge: “I can’t afford that I am poor. I am very poor. I have three cats to feed, and I won’t starve my cats.”

Despite being unsuccessful in court she added: “Thank you Your Honour for a fair trail. You have been very good. Thank you, thank you.”