Crime

Police officer accused of kicking wife down the stairs

Published

1 year ago

August 28, 2024

A SHOCKING trial is unfolding at Cardiff Crown Court, where police constable Huw Orphan, 31, from Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan, stands accused of grievous bodily harm with intent after allegedly kicking his wife, fellow police officer Amy Burley, down a flight of stairs, resulting in a serious back injury. The incident, which occurred in April 2020, has raised serious questions about domestic violence within the police force and has captured the attention of the public.

The court has heard harrowing details of the couple’s tumultuous relationship, marked by frequent arguments and growing tension, particularly in the months following the birth of their prematurely born son. The trial, now in its second week, has seen both the prosecution and defence lay out their cases with fervour, as the jury grapples with the complexities of the events that transpired on that fateful night.

Huw Orphan and Amy Burley first met in late 2017 while working for Gwent Police. At the time, Ms Burley was a custody detention officer, and Mr Orphan had already established himself as a constable, having joined the force in May 2016. Their relationship quickly blossomed, and they moved in together in Newport in 2019, tying the knot on 10 July of the same year. By December 2019, the couple welcomed their first child together, though the joyous occasion was marred by the premature birth of their son, adding strain to an already challenging period.

The couple’s move to Barry in February 2020 was intended to offer a fresh start, but by then, their relationship had already begun to deteriorate. The court was presented with evidence of increasingly frequent arguments, often over seemingly trivial matters, such as the proper sterilisation of their baby’s bottles. These disputes, however, belied deeper issues within the marriage.

On the evening of 7 April 2020, the couple engaged in yet another argument, this time via text message while Mr Orphan was at work. Ms Burley testified that she was anxious and upset due to her husband’s lack of communication, feelings that were exacerbated by the strain of their deteriorating relationship. The messages presented in court revealed Ms Burley’s frustration, as she accused her husband of being indifferent and inattentive.

The situation escalated when Mr Orphan returned home shortly after 01:00. Defence barrister Julian King suggested that the altercation began when Ms Burley, in a fit of anger, swiped at the back of her husband’s legs as they ascended the stairs, causing her to fall. However, Ms Burley categorically denied this version of events, insisting that she was kicked forcefully down the stairs, landing on her back with such impact that she missed the steps entirely.

“I was kicked backwards down that set of stairs, so hard I actually missed the stairs and landed flat on my back,” she told the court, her voice trembling with emotion as she recounted the moment that changed her life.

The court heard that following the incident, Ms Burley lay in pain on the sofa, while Mr Orphan retreated upstairs to sleep. However, at around 03:45, he sent her a heart emoji, to which she responded with an apology for her earlier behaviour. Mr Orphan’s reply, “I am sorry for what happened,” has become a focal point of the prosecution’s case, suggesting an acknowledgment of guilt.

The following day, the couple’s communication appeared to return to a semblance of normality, but Ms Burley testified that this was out of fear of what her husband might do next. “I think I was just scared of what he was capable of doing next,” she explained, describing a pattern where arguments would erupt, only for the couple to act as if everything was fine the next day.

Ms Burley further claimed that Mr Orphan only agreed to take her to the hospital if she promised not to reveal the true cause of her injuries. “He told me that if I didn’t tell them I’d fallen, he wouldn’t bring my kids back,” she testified, painting a disturbing picture of coercion and control.

The defence’ case

Defence barrister Julian King has vigorously challenged Ms Burley’s account, suggesting that she was not the victim but rather the aggressor in the relationship. He argued that Ms Burley’s injuries were the result of her own actions, not those of her husband, and pointed out that she made no immediate report of assault following the incident in April 2020.

King further asserted that the couple’s volatile relationship was marked by mutual conflict, with both parties contributing to the heated arguments that frequently erupted in their home. He questioned the timing of Ms Burley’s complaint, noting that it was not until May 2020, after the couple had separated, that she sought advice on how to make a formal complaint against Mr Orphan.

In support of the defence, a statement from Sgt Paul Broad of Maindee Police Station in Newport was read to the court, in which he recounted Ms Burley’s claim of having fractured a bone in her back and requiring a brace. The defence has sought to cast doubt on the credibility of Ms Burley’s allegations, arguing that her injuries may not have been as severe as she has claimed and suggesting that her motivation for the complaint may be rooted in the acrimonious nature of their separation.

Prosecution’s evidence

The prosecution, led by Ieuan Bennett, has presented a series of photographs taken by Ms Burley, documenting the injuries she sustained, including a “linear mark to the arm,” a “small abrasion just below the ear,” and a “cut or laceration near the ankle.” These images, coupled with Ms Burley’s testimony, form the backbone of the prosecution’s case, which aims to demonstrate a pattern of abusive behaviour by Mr Orphan.

“I’m still in a lot of pain,” Ms Burley told the court, describing the long-term impact of her injuries. “I can’t run around after my children, go into a soft play centre, or kick a ball with them.”

As the trial continues, the jury is faced with the difficult task of sifting through conflicting testimonies and determining the truth of what transpired between the couple. The case has highlighted not only the personal tragedy of a family in crisis but also broader concerns about domestic violence within the police force, an issue that remains deeply troubling for both the public and those within the law enforcement community.

The trial is expected to continue for several more days, with further evidence and witness testimonies set to be presented. The outcome will likely hinge on the jury’s assessment of the credibility of both parties and the weight of the evidence presented. Until then, the court remains the stage for a deeply personal and painful drama that has captivated all who are following the case.

The trial continues.

Crime

Pembroke rape investigation dropped – one suspect now facing deportation

Published

14 hours ago

December 3, 2025

Tom Sinclair

DYFED-POWYS POLICE have closed an investigation into an alleged rape and false imprisonment in Pembroke after deciding to take no further action. One of the two men originally arrested is now in immigration detention and faces deportation.

The incident took place on Main Street over the weekend of 8–9 November 2025. Police were called at 9:45am on Sunday 9 November after reports of a woman in distress. She was taken to hospital for treatment.

Two men – aged 36 and 27 – were arrested at the scene on suspicion of rape and false imprisonment. They were subsequently released on bail while enquiries continued.

On Tuesday (2 December 2025), the force announced the criminal investigation has concluded and no charges will be brought. A police spokesperson said the decision took full account of the victim’s wishes.

Outcome for the two suspects:

The 36-year-old man has been transferred to the custody of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement team and is now detained pending deportation.
The 27-year-old man has been released with no further police action.

A Dyfed-Powys Police statement read: “This investigation was not terrorism-related, and we have no knowledge of any linked incident in Monkton. All rumours suggesting otherwise are incorrect.”

The force has also dismissed separate community speculation that the men entered the UK illegally on fraudulent passports or were due in court this week on terrorism charges.

Detectives stressed that every report of rape or serious sexual assault is treated seriously and victims are supported throughout. Anyone affected has been directed to specialist services, details of which are available on the force website.

No further police updates are expected.

Crime

Defendant denies using Sudocrem-covered finger to assault two-month-old baby

Published

1 day ago

December 2, 2025

Tom Sinclair

In dramatic day-long cross-examination, Christopher Phillips repeatedly denies sexual penetration, as prosecution alleges escalating anal attacks ended in catastrophic injury

CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS, 28, spent almost six hours in the witness box today. During the entire afternoon he underwent a sustained and highly graphic cross-examination by prosecuting counsel Caroline Rees KC.

The defendant is accused of cruelty and multiple sexual assaults on his then-girlfriend’s two-month-old son between December 2020 and January 2021, culminating in life-threatening anal injuries discovered when the child was rushed to hospital on 24 January 2021. The baby’s mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is jointly charged with causing or allowing serious physical harm.

Both defendants plead not guilty.

Ms Rees KC opened the day by telling Phillips that the prosecution case was that he had developed a sexual interest in penetrating the baby anally and had used his finger, coated with Sudocrem, to do so on a number of occasions before finally causing the “catastrophic” tearing injury seen in the medical photographs.

***Artist’s impression of Christopher Phillips giving evidence at Swansea Crown Court***

Sudocrem and the mechanics of nappy changing

The prosecutor took Phillips step-by-step through his own description of how he applied Sudocrem: Ms Rees: “You would put a blob of Sudocrem on one finger, then use another finger to smear it around the nappy area?” Phillips: “Yes.” Ms Rees: “So your finger was covered in Sudocrem?” Phillips: “Yes.” Ms Rees: “And you accept you sometimes changed the baby completely alone?” Phillips: “Yes, occasionally.” Ms Rees: “You are extremely experienced with anal sex. You know that the first thing you do is use a lubricated finger to relax and open the sphincter before anything larger is introduced?” Phillips: “With consenting adults, yes.” Ms Rees: “Precisely. And that is exactly what you did to this baby with your Sudocrem-covered finger on more than one occasion, wasn’t it?” Phillips: “No. Never. Absolutely not.”

The alleged progression of assaults

Ms Rees put it to Phillips that the bright red blood he first noticed in the nappy around 12 January 2021, the further bleeding he photographed and sent to the mother on the night of 23 January, and the eventual massive tear and prolapse discovered hours later formed a clear escalation. “You were testing the water,” Ms Rees said. “First a little bleeding, then a bit more, and finally you went too far and caused the terrible injury the jury have seen.” Phillips repeatedly insisted the blood was caused by constipation and a haemorrhoid he had personally identified.

The baby’s rattle

Returning to the incident in which Phillips pressed the baby’s rattle against his own anus as a joke, Ms Rees said: “You have a highly trained eye for objects that can be used anally, don’t you, Mr Phillips? Within a split second you saw that rattle and thought ‘sex toy’.” Phillips replied: “It was a stupid, throw-away moment of jocularity. I didn’t insert it.”

Deletion of material from his phone

Within 48–72 hours of the baby being admitted to hospital in a life-threatening condition, Phillips wiped large quantities of sexual photographs, videos and internet search history from his device. Ms Rees: “You realised the game was up and you frantically deleted anything that showed your sexual interests, didn’t you?” Phillips: “I deleted adult material involving [the mother] because I was embarrassed. There was never anything involving the baby to delete.”

The final night – 23/24 January 2021

Cell-site records show Phillips arrived at the flat around 18:30 and did not leave until 02:57. He accepts he changed the baby’s nappy three times that night, including once around 22:17 when he photographed fresh blood and sent it to the mother who was in the next room. Ms Rees put it to him that shortly before he left he carried out the most serious assault, causing the full-thickness tear and prolapse, then “calmly walked out knowing the child was catastrophically injured”. Phillips answered: “When I left he was quiet and settled in [the mother’s] arms.”

Closing accusation

At the end of the afternoon, Caroline Rees KC rose and addressed the defendant directly: “Mr Phillips, over a period of weeks you sexually assaulted this two-month-old baby with your finger on multiple occasions. On the final night you penetrated [Baby C] so violently that you caused the devastating injuries shown in the photographs the jury have seen. That is the truth, isn’t it?” Phillips turned to face the jury and replied firmly and clearly: “No. I did not. I have never touched that baby sexually or harmed [the baby] in any way whatsoever.”

Caroline Rees KC indicated she still has further questions. Cross-examination will resume tomorrow morning before His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC.

Crime

Probation claims ‘not fair’, says solicitor as defendant jailed for hammer offence

Published

1 day ago

December 2, 2025

Sarah Jane Absalom

Defence challenges report accusing Milford man of refusing to comply with community order

CLAIMS by the probation service that a defendant had refused to comply with community order requirements were strongly refuted by a defence solicitor when the case came before Haverfordwest magistrates this week.

Representing Josh Skipper, solicitor Tom Lloyd criticised what he described as a catalogue of inaccuracies in a probation report that recommended an immediate custodial sentence.

The report alleged that Skipper had:

REFUSED to comply with his community order;
was UNMOTIVATED to seek employment;
had no ACTIVE SKILLS or activity preferences; and
was not EASY to engage with.

But Mr Lloyd told the court these assertions were “simply not fair”.

“The report isn’t helpful in setting out the defendant’s background,” he said. “It’s just not fair.”

He told magistrates that Skipper had made repeated attempts to secure work in recent weeks, but had been unsuccessful. He added that the report criticised Skipper for having no skills or activities but offered no constructive recommendations such as unpaid work.

“It says he isn’t an easy person to engage with, but this is someone who was brought up in care from the age of 13 or 14,” Mr Lloyd said.

Skipper, 24, of Chestnut Way, Milford Haven, was before the court for sentence after pleading guilty to possessing an offensive weapon — a hammer — in a public place, namely Victoria Road, Milford Haven, on November 9.

Mr Lloyd accepted the offence crossed the custody threshold but urged magistrates to impose a suspended sentence.

“He understands it isn’t up to him to pick and choose what requirements they want of him,” he said. “But rather than be given a custodial sentence, his sentence should be suspended.”

Magistrates rejected the request, citing Skipper’s repeated offending and his lack of compliance with previous community orders.

Skipper was sentenced to 26 weeks in custody and ordered to pay a £154 surcharge and £85 costs. A forfeiture and destruction order was made for the hammer.