News

Jury out in chip shop murder trial

Published

6 years ago

November 18, 2019

THE JURY has retired to consider its verdict regarding the trial of a man who is charged with murdering his wife with a chip shop fryer.

Geoffrey Bran, aged 70 from Hermon in Carmarthenshire, is accused of murdering his wife Mavis on October 23 last year, and is alleged to have thrown scalding hot oil over her from a deep fat fryer, which gave her widespread burns and lead to her death later in hospital.

He had also burnt his own hand when he tried to help her remove her jumper, which was saturated in the boiling hot oil, by trying to pull it over her head.

Earlier this week, Bran gave evidence to the court in his own defence. He told the court that there would be arguments about nothing after his wife would drink alcohol and have ‘spells of paranoia moments’ in the day, but claimed he had never hit his wife during a confrontation. He said that Mavis would start drinking early, and would consume two and a half bottles of red wine.

Bran told the court they opened the Chipoteria because Mavis was doing some meals for elderly people in the village, and didn’t like retirement because she was always on the go. He said he built a cabin next to the caravan, which took around a year, because Mavis desperately wanted to open in January. He said he would clean and blanch chips, fry them, and clean the equipment after. Mavis would cook fish and pies, and make sauces.

On the day that Mavis died, Bran said Mavis was in a good mood, but had been drinking from around 9.30am that day. He said she consumed a brandy with two neighbours, and he didn’t notice anything different about her behaviour when she had been drinking.

Bran spoke about an order, for which his wife said the fat wasn’t good enough to cook the fish in. He said: “I said you may as well use my friers, I use you for chips, but you have to turn them down because they’re a bit high for fish.”

He claimed that shortly afterwards, she looking into the fryer and told him he had overdone them. He said: “I didn’t know I was meant to look after them. She said she was coming back straight away.”

With that, he said Mavis took the fish out with tongs and tossed them into a tray, resulting in a ‘waterfall of fat’. He told her he had seen worse on plates, and said he believed she wasn’t going to serve them.

He went on to describe that he went to blanch some chips, but happened to turn around to see that Mavis had fallen, and her head was about nine inches away from the floor.

He said: “I hadn’t seen her falling because I wasn’t looking at that point. I turned around and saw her flying to the floor. In the corner of my eye I could see the fat fryer moving on the table as if in slow motion, but it wasn’t slow motion. At the moment I was going to move I could see the legs … instantly the legs fell off the edge and the weight of the oil tipped the whole thing forwards the whole two tubs came out in one whoosh.

“Once the legs got over the edge the weight of the oil must have moved things fast without the tubs coming out and it was like a waterfall and landed on her chest.

“By this time now the whole unit was going through the air and landing on top of her, pulling the sockets out.”

He continued: “I grabbed her arm, grabbed her other arm, pulled her to a sitting position, and lift all her clothes off. I didn’t know whether I was doing the right thing to be honest. I just thought get the clothes off. She was wearing a thick jumper and a t-shirt underneath. Usually she wears a kitchen apron, but because we had guests that day she had forgotten to change.

“I grabbed the bottom of the jumper and pulled it off her head. I think the jumper came into contact with her face.”

When asked if he felt any pain, he said he couldn’t remember, and was trying to get her clothes off her.

He said: “I walk round her, grab her two arms and pull her to a standing condition. I pulled her to the slabs outside. At that point I forgot I didn’t have a phone. I’d forgotten to bring it down in the morning. We always took the mobile phone back to the house in the night to charge it.”

Bran said he told her to run up the house in order to call an ambulance. He said: “She screamed up the path. She was in shock but she knew what was happening. I could see her arms were peeling. That’s about it really because all the rest was quite red.”

When asked why he didn’t go with her or why he didn’t comfort her, she said he didn’t know and was ‘totally stumped’.

The court heard how when a customer came in, Bran told them there had been an accident, but when he said he could go to Newcastle Emlyn, he said he would serve him. He said that Mavis was in a dressing gown shaking, and her face was white.

Bran was kept in custody until October 24. He was asked if he visited Mavis in hospital, but said he was told he was not allowed to.

He said he wanted to see her to say goodbye, and told the court that he misses her every day.

During cross examination, Bran was pressed as to why he didn’t comfort his wife of 30 years and ask about how she was. He told the court he ‘couldn’t face it’, but couldn’t say why.

He claimed that his wife deliberately lied to paramedics and blamed him for burning her. He said ‘they are all lies’, and said that she would always make things up and blamed him for everything.

Bran was asked, if he had helped to remove Mavis’ clothing, why he didn’t have burns on both hands. He couldn’t answer.

The court heard that Mavis suffered 46% burns to her total body area. The burns were both partial and full thickness.

The front of her body mostly suffered from full thickness burns, including her torso, thigh and neck. Her eyes were closed when she suffered the partial thickness burns to her face. Her eyelids were burned, but not her eyes themselves. There were no burns to the back of her hands, her palms or her fingers, but there were to her inner forearms. They were likely secondary burns, caused by the removal of her clothing.

The burns proved to be fatal when her condition deteriorated. As a result, the burns she suffered caused her death.

The jury retired at 12.51pm on Monday (Nov 18) to consider the case. Judge Paul Thomas QC, said: “Members of the jury I am now going to ask you to retire and consider your verdict in this case. There is no pressure of time. Take as short or as long time as needs be. As far as today is concerned, if you have reached a verdict that is well and good; if you haven’t you will be sent home and return tomorrow.”

The jury has since retired and the court awaits a verdict.

Crime

Farming company fined £19,000 for damaging protected wildlife site

Published

12 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Sarah-Jane Absalom

A CARDIGAN farming company has been ordered to pay almost £20,000 after recklessly damaging a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Jenkins Ty Hen Ltd, run by David Glyn Jenkins and William Lloyd Jenkins, of Ty Hen, Verwig, admitted damaging the Llwyn Ysgaw, Caeau Crug Bychan and Ty Gwyn SSSI through the unauthorised use of manure, slurry, fertilisers and lime.

The offences took place between June 21 and July 31, 2024.

The court heard that Natural Resources Wales had repeatedly warned the company about how the protected land should be managed.

Aled Watkins, prosecuting for NRW, said an agreement made in 2004 made clear that the landowners needed written consent before carrying out certain activities on the site, including the use of slurry, herbicides, pesticides, fertiliser or lime.

He said: “A significant amount of guidance, advice and warnings has been directed to the company over a substantial period of time, as there have been problems before.”

The court was told advice had been given in 2017, with further discussions in 2021. Further problems were identified in 2024, leading to advice letters and then a formal warning in June that year.

Mr Watkins said: “Even after the letters were sent, no consent request was made.

“The common sense conclusion was that, where the original agreement was clear and advice had been given years prior, this was a deliberate act by the landowners of spreading slurry on the SSSI.”

Jenkins Ty Hen Ltd pleaded guilty to intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging flora on the protected site, contrary to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

The company also admitted permitting the use of manure, slurry, silage liquor, fertiliser or lime without written consent from NRW, knowing it was likely to damage rare flora and fauna as well as geological and physiographical features.

Defending, solicitor Harry Dickens said the company had not deliberately set out to damage the land.

“This is more akin to the business damaging the land rather than setting out within their practices to do that damage,” he said.

He added that various contractors were used at the farm and were not always aware of the regulations.

“The defendants did not go out intentionally to harm the flora and fauna,” he said.

“Yes, they had foresight of the warnings and the previous agreement, but this is more akin to wilful blindness rather than going out intending to damage the land. It was not a flagrant disregard.

“The defendants were not loutish in their usage of the land, they are not vandals, they have not been silent and neither have they stonewalled NRW.”

Mr Dickens said the farmers accepted the need to restore the land and were keen to work productively with the authorities.

District Judge Mark Layton said Jenkins Ty Hen Ltd had breached NRW requirements.

“They spread fertilisers, herbicides and slurry on the land which was a breach,” he said.

“This was clearly a deliberate act of culpability and a complete disregard after already being given advice and warnings.”

The court heard the company’s most recent financial turnover was just over £1.6m. It was described by the defence as a micro-business.

Jenkins Ty Hen Ltd was ordered to pay £19,940.66, made up of a £9,000 fine, £8,940.66 costs to NRW and a £2,000 surcharge.

A restoration order was also made requiring work to improve the quality of the damaged SSSI land.

News

Game of Thrones star urges voters to back anti-DARC parties

Published

12 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Tom Sinclair

ACTOR Jerome Flynn has urged voters in Wales to back parties opposed to the proposed DARC radar scheme at Cawdor Barracks, saying the issue could be decided by the next Welsh Government.

The Pembrokeshire-based Game of Thrones star, also known for Soldier Soldier and Robson & Jerome, made the appeal in a video released by PARC Against DARC on Tuesday (May 5), just two days before polling day in the Senedd election.

Radar row enters election campaign

Flynn urged voters in Ceredigion Penfro and across Wales to support Plaid Cymru or the Green Party, saying both parties had pledged to oppose the project.

The Ministry of Defence has submitted a planning application to Pembrokeshire County Council for 27 radar antennas and associated infrastructure at Cawdor Barracks, near Brawdy.

The scheme forms part of the Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability programme, linked to the AUKUS defence partnership between the UK, US and Australia.

The MOD says DARC would help detect, identify and track objects in Earth orbit, supporting military and civilian satellite security.

Opponents claim the radar would industrialise part of the Pembrokeshire countryside, damage the setting of the national park, and increase the area’s military significance.

Flynn says project ‘not a done deal’

In the video, Flynn described the election as “probably the most crucial vote we’ve made in 25 years”.

He claimed the next Senedd could play a decisive role in the future of the project, saying: “I’m here to say, it’s not a done deal because Plaid Cymru and the Greens have both made party-led decisions to say no to Westminster.

“We’re not having such a thing on our beloved coast.”

Flynn also described St Davids as “the spiritual home of Wales” and criticised what he called “the most unspeakably abominable planning application” on the edge of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.

Campaign steps up pressure

PARC Against DARC said it welcomed Flynn’s intervention and said it had distributed 22,000 leaflets around Pembrokeshire in recent weeks.

The campaign group said First Minister Eluned Morgan’s recent comments on the scheme did not go far enough.

A spokesperson said: “While Eluned Morgan has come out in the final hour to call for DARC to be halted, we fear this does not go nearly far enough.

“Plaid Cymru and the Green Party have both made it their national party policy to oppose and stop DARC, so we have no doubt of the authenticity of their commitment.”

The group is also urging residents to submit objections to Pembrokeshire County Council before the current publicity period ends on May 20.

Welsh Government role

Campaigners say the next Welsh Government could intervene by “calling in” the planning application, meaning Welsh ministers would take responsibility for deciding it rather than leaving the final decision with Pembrokeshire County Council.

That possibility has made DARC a significant local election issue in Ceredigion Penfro, where Eluned Morgan is Labour’s lead candidate, Elin Jones leads the Plaid Cymru list, and Amy Nicholass heads the Green Party list.

Under the new Senedd voting system, voters will elect six Members of the Senedd for the constituency using a proportional list system.

PARC Against DARC said this meant there was “far less need for tactical voting” and argued that voters opposed to the radar could support either Plaid Cymru or the Greens.

Wider concerns

Campaigners have repeatedly claimed that the radar would make Pembrokeshire a potential military target and draw Wales further into US military strategy.

They also say the project raises environmental, health, democratic and security concerns.

Supporters of the scheme argue that space monitoring is becoming increasingly important as satellites are used for communications, navigation, defence and emergency infrastructure.

Flynn ended his video by saying: “Vote with your heart because we can make a difference here, we could put in a government that cares about our land, our people and our environment.”

Whatever the outcome of Thursday’s election, the intervention by one of Pembrokeshire’s best-known residents is likely to keep the DARC controversy high on the political agenda.

News

Landlords in Wales face new anti-discrimination laws

Published

12 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Tom Sinclair

New rules from June 1 will make it unlawful to refuse renters because they have children or receive benefits

LANDLORDS in Wales are being warned to prepare for new anti-discrimination laws which come into force at the beginning of June.

From Monday, June 1, it will be unlawful for landlords and letting agents to discriminate against prospective contract-holders because they have children or receive benefits.

The change follows the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which mainly reforms renting law in England, but also extends key anti-discrimination protections into Wales.

The Welsh provisions will be incorporated into the Renting Homes framework and will apply to occupation contracts. Unlike the civil penalty regime used in England, breaches in Wales may amount to a criminal offence, with enforcement handled by local authorities and cases dealt with through the courts.

What landlords cannot do

From June 1, landlords and agents must not deter people from applying for a property because they have children or receive benefits.

They must also not refuse or restrict access to viewings, prevent prospective tenants from receiving information about a property, or exclude them from entering into an occupation contract on those grounds.

The measures are aimed at ending blanket “no children” or “no benefits” policies, which campaigners have long argued unfairly shut families and low-income households out of the private rented sector.

Landlords will still be allowed to carry out affordability checks and assess whether a property is suitable. For example, a landlord may still decide that a particular room or property is physically unsuitable for children, but the decision must be based on the property itself rather than a blanket ban.

Paperwork deadline

Under the new rules, landlords will need to issue either a new occupation contract or a statement of variation to reflect the changes.

The statement can be served up to fourteen days after the rules take effect, meaning landlords should act by June 14.

Leading North Wales estate and lettings agent Cavendish, which has offices in Mold and Ruthin, says it has been advising landlords ahead of the deadline.

Nicola Blake, Operations Director at Cavendish, said: “While much of the focus in recent months has been on the introduction of the Renters’ Rights Act in England, some of the changes are also impacting Wales.

“As of June 1, landlords in Wales will be subject to stringent anti-discrimination laws and failure to adhere to the new legislation could result in a criminal prosecution.”

She added: “This is a significant change for landlords in Wales, and we are helping our clients to be ready well ahead of the deadline, completing the required paperwork and ensuring they are fully compliant.”

Landlord seminar

Cavendish will hold a seminar later this year for landlords in Wales, covering legislative changes and advice on managing and improving property portfolios.

The event will take place on Monday, October 26, at Theatr Clwyd. Cavendish recently became a Gold Member of the Mold arts venue.

Cavendish was established in 1993 by Julian Adams, the firm’s chairman, and his then business partner Robert Ikin.

The company now employs more than thirty people across estate agency and lettings, with offices in Mold, Ruthin and Chester. It says it helps more than 600 homeowners move each year and manages around 650 properties.