A former boarding school housemaster and scout leader has been found guilty of 97 offences, including dozens of historical child sexual abuse offences.
Richard Burrows spent 27 years on the run, living in what he described as “paradise”, after fleeing the UK when he was due to appear in court in 1997.
Burrows, who lived in the southern Thailand province of Phuket, told family he had come back to face his accusers and his maker – police say the truth was that he simply had run out of money.
He had previously admitted dozens of offences dating from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s.
The jury at Chester Crown Court heard that Burrows systematically abused boys with whom he came into contact.
Burrows had admitted 43 offences – and denied 54 others, which jurors convicted him of on Monday.
Mark Connor KC said: “He obtained positions of trust and responsibility which he breached to satisfy himself sexually with the youngsters.”
Burrows had worked as a housemaster at a school for troubled teenagers in Cheshire in the 1960s. He was later involved with the scouts and amateur radio clubs in the Midlands.
Image: Richard Burrows was met by police at Heathrow
Victim describes ‘despicable, evil human being’
James Harvey was 13 or 14 when he was befriended by Burrows through his involvement with the sea scouts. Burrows admitted indecently assaulting James in a caravan after visiting an RAF show.
James has waived his right to anonymity as a victim of a sexual offence.
He told Sky News: “The reason I’m doing this is to at least put a face to the real children who from the age of 10, 12, 13, put their trust in this man. I want his name to be trashed in the world for everybody that ever knew him and thought that he was okay.
“I think he’s pathetic in the true sense of the word. His impulses and emotions have driven everything that he’s done probably throughout the whole of his life and have left him looking like a shambling, despicable, evil human being that could casually over 60 years do this to children and still wake up in the morning and find a way of justifying it.
“I think he’s pathetic, I think he’s weak. There is nothing about this man that deserves anything other than loathing.”
Image: James Harvey has waived his right to anonymity
Accusers came forward after Crimewatch appeal
During his trial, Burrows admitted being a paedophile but denied the more serious allegations, describing them as “degrading and disgusting”.
The court heard that Burrows believed his actions had done no harm to the children.
As he planned his return to the UK last year, he told his brother that “not all paedophiles are the same”.
“I just think that’s a disgusting comment to make,” detective inspector Eli Atkinson of Cheshire Police told Sky News.
“What we see when we talk to the victims is that it absolutely did do harm. For the vast majority of them, that is their first sexual experience at the age of nine, ten, eleven, twelve, that affects a person for the rest of their life.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:08
Paedophile’s life in Thailand
Burrows, who is originally from Sutton Coldfield, was first arrested in April 1997 and charged with child sexual offences. When he failed to appear at Chester Crown Court that December, a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Over the years, police made numerous televised appeals for help to track down Burrows on the BBC’s Crimewatch programme. It prompted more accusers to come forward.
But Burrows had left the UK. He obtained a passport using the name Peter Leslie Smith having cloned the identity of an unwell acquaintance.
During a routine reappraisal of the case, police used facial recognition software to confirm that “Smith” was in fact Burrows, and that he was living openly in Thailand.
When they became aware of his plans to return to the UK, police allowed Burrows to travel on his fake passport so he could be arrested as he touched down.
Cheshire Police say they are not able to say whether Burrows might have offended during his time living abroad.
DI Atkinson said it is possible there are other victims who have not come forward.
“There may well be. There’s a lot of reasons why people have really difficult decisions to make as to whether they come forward in cases like this.
“It would not surprise me if, given the length of time that he offended over and the level of offending, if there were more people out there who were victims of him.”
James Harvey has questions over why Burrows was granted bail in 1997. He also wonders whether he could have done more to report him earlier.
“People listening to me now might think ‘Oh, I’d behave differently’ but we had no language, no framework, no understanding, no imagination that this same person had done to us, would go on and do something so much worse to somebody else.
“It is almost impossible for me to sit here and say I wish I had done that. There was no way that I could, literally. We lived in this kind of unbelievable ignorance and innocence that there were predators like this living in every single one of our institutions.”
Burrows has now been convicted. Some of his accusers died before seeing him finally face justice.
Labour has sunk to its lowest approval rating for this parliament, according to a fresh YouGov poll for Sky News.
Sir Keir Starmer’s party is currently on 20% of the vote – the lowest level since last year’s general election and just three points ahead of the Conservatives. on 17% of the vote.
Asked about the polling, Nick Thomas-Symonds, the EU relations minister, told Sky News’ Anna Jones that the government had been forced to take “very difficult decisions to stabilise the public finances early in this parliament”.
He said Labour had acted in the “national interest” by securing a reset deal with the EU which lowers costs for supermarkets and shoppers, and which the government hopes to extend.
“That is acting in the national interest, that is not about particular opinion polls you are showing me today,” he said.
“That is about work the prime minister asked me to do and to prepare for before this government came into office and that is what this government does. It does the hard yards of delivery for the British people.”
He added: “What Nigel Farage does is to stoke problems and offer empty promises for their solution.”
Mr Thomas-Symonds, who represents Torfaen, took the fight to Mr Farage in a speech today, where he accused the Reform UK leader of wanting to “reverse our progress” and of “dividing communities and stoking anger”.
The government wants to get a permanent deal with the EU on food and drink agreed in the next 18 months.
The current temporary agreement, which was put in place in June, stopped checks on some fruit and vegetables imported from the EU, which meant no border checks or fees would be paid, and is due to expire in January 2027.
Mr Farage has previously called for the agreement between the UK and EU to be torn up, saying in May that the SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] provisions agreed that month would push the UK “back into the orbit of Brussels, giving away vast amounts of our sovereignty for very little in return”.
In his speech, Mr Thomas-Symonds said the Tories and Reform UK only offer “easy answers and snake oil” over the UK’s relationship with the EU.
“Some will hysterically cry even treason,” he said. “Some will say we’re surrendering sovereignty or freedoms, but that is nonsense.
“We are determined to plug the gaps, to rebuild Britain, protect our borders, bring down bills in every part of the country and secure good jobs, a new relationship of mutual benefit, one that brings freedom back to our businesses and exercises our sovereignty.
“And it needs pragmatism. When you’re tough, decisive and collaborative. That cannot rest on easy answers and snake oil. The Tories [are] completely 2D, stuck with a ghost of Brexit past. And then Nigel Farage, who has pledged to reverse our progress.”
A Reform UK spokesperson said: “No one has done more damage to British businesses than this Labour government.
“With 157,000 fewer people on payroll since Labour took office, their jobs tax is stifling success and hitting small and medium-sized businesses across the country.
“Cosying up to the EU and leaving us entangled in reams of retained EU law which Kemi Badenoch failed to scrap will not resuscitate Britain’s struggling economy.”
More than six million new cancer cases could be diagnosed in England between now and 2040, according to leading charities.
This would equate to a diagnosis every two minutes, which is up from one every four minutes in the 1970s.
A coalition of more than 60 cancercharities, known as One Cancer Voice, is warning the government must take urgent steps to tackle cancer care in England – including faster diagnosis targets and better prevention policies.
The analysis carried out by the charities is based largely on pre-pandemic data and suggests cases will increase by 14.2% over the next 15 years, with diagnoses of some of the most common cancers reaching all-time highs.
This includes over a million new prostate cancer diagnoses, and more than 900,000 for breast cancer by 2040.
The research also finds regional variations:
• South East – over a million diagnoses
• North East – 865,000
• East of England and the South West – 722,000
• London – 714,000
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:56
Man loses voice box after late cancer diagnosis
Six key demands
These figures starkly set out the need for change, and the timing of their release is significant.
Later this autumn, the government is expected to publish its long-awaited National Cancer Plan.
These leading charities have combined forces to put pressure on ministers ahead of its publication, demanding six measures which they say must be implemented if cancer outcomes are to improve:
• A pledge to meet all cancer waiting times by the end of parliament in 2029
• A new earlier diagnosis target, with improved screening programmes
• The introduction of strong cancer prevention policies
• Addressing inequalities in patient care
• Improving access to clinical trials for cancer patients
• Better support for people to live well with and beyond cancer
‘A defining moment’
The pandemic had a huge impact on cancer care in the country, and an ageing population adds further pressures.
But the most recently available data, which is around a decade old, suggests the NHS is still lagging behind many comparable countries.
The chief executive of Cancer Research UK, Michelle Mitchell, described the national plan as a “defining moment”.
“If the UK government delivers an ambitious fully funded strategy, we could save more lives and transform cancer outcomes, propelling England from world lagging to among world leading when it comes to tackling this disease,” she said.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “This government is prioritising cancer care as we turn around more than a decade of neglect of our NHS.
“We’re already making an impact, with 95,000 more people having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days between July 2024 and May 2025, compared to the same period the previous year.
“This will soon be supported by our new National Cancer Plan, setting out how cancer care will improve over the coming years.
“We’re also making it easier for people to get tests, checks, and scans with DIY screening kits for cervical cancer, new radiotherapy machines in every region, and by creating the first smoke-free generation.”
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.