The ringleader of a Romanian grooming gang was offered £1,500 by the Home Office to be deported while he was in prison awaiting trial for 10 rapes, a Sky News investigation has found.

Mircea Marian Cumpanasoiu, 38, led a network which raped, drugged and exploited vulnerable local women in Dundee.

But Sky News can exclusively reveal that in summer 2024, while in custody at HMP Perth awaiting trial for serial sex offences, officials handed him a “voluntary return” form under a government scheme paying foreign nationals to leave Britain.

The department later decided not to remove him because of the upcoming court proceedings.

Immigration status renewed during trial

In another twist, just months later – as he stood in a High Court dock facing 10 rape charges – Sky News has discovered Cumpanasoiu’s immigration status, which was due to expire, was automatically renewed under the EU settlement scheme.

Cumpanasoiu was later handed a 24-year extended sentence, with 20 years in jail and four on licence, for sexual and trafficking offences.

Prosecutors described him as a “winking, smirking pimp” who once filmed a victim climbing a tree to escape his anger when she “failed” to make enough money in Dundee brothels.

Following days of questions from Sky News, officials have confirmed his settled status has now been revoked.

The inside story

Sky sources say Home Office workers personally met Cumpanasoiu at Perth prison while he was on remand in August 2024.

Sources say he “expressed a desire to return home” and was handed documents to sign agreeing to a cash-assisted return, but the plan was later blocked.

But in another twist, on 2 December 2024, halfway through the grooming gang trial, his EU settled status was renewed.

A source close to proceedings told Sky News the revelations “smack of incompetence”.

The Home Office does not dispute this version of events.

Rape Crisis Scotland said the case raises concerns.

A spokesperson for the charity said: “This was a horrific case, which involved numerous vulnerable survivors who showed tremendous strength and courage by coming forward to seek justice for what had happened to them.

“The severity of this case has, quite rightly, resulted in significant prison sentences for the perpetrators. However, it is not clear why the Home Office tried to intervene before a trial had begun, and any verdict had been reached.

“Survivors must have faith in the criminal justice process and its ability to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes.

“This incident raises questions about what the Home Office’s intentions were, and why it was able to insert itself into active criminal proceedings in the first place.”

Read more from Sky News:
Swinney ‘open’ to national inquiry into grooming gangs
Why are abuse survivors losing faith in grooming gang inquiry?

What is the EU Settlement Scheme?

The EU Settlement Scheme was set up after Brexit to allow citizens from the EU, and their family members, to continue living and working in the UK.

People with “settled status” can stay in the UK indefinitely.

Those with “pre-settled status”, such as Cumpanasoiu, must reapply after five years.

Since September 2023, the Home Office has introduced automatic extensions of pre-settled status which means renewals happen electronically unless officials intervene.

There are questions now about whether this automation can lead to offenders such as Cumpanasoiu being overlooked.

Home Office ‘had power to intervene’

Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and leading expert on migrants’ rights, told Sky News the vast majority of those processed under the EU system are law-abiding citizens.

But Ms Ang, a professor at the University of Glasgow, reveals authorities did have the power to intervene in this case.

She said: “In this case the Home Office did have the power and the right to stop the automatic renewal. At any point where it is possible that someone is about to become unsuitable for settled status, the Home Office could have intervened.

“The optics of this in the context of such a high-profile and horrific crime are not great.”

‘The public are entitled to be concerned’

Thomas Leonard Ross KC, a leading Scottish defence lawyer, described the decision-making as “flawed”.

He said: “I mean automatically renewing pre-settled status in 99.9% of occasions can be done without any risk to the public. But clearly this particular individual has been assessed to be an extremely dangerous person.

“The public are perfectly entitled to be concerned. A decision of this type made automatically without any assessment as to the risk that he might pose is clearly a flawed decision.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “This man will serve his sentence for the abhorrent crimes he committed and will be considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity.

“A deportation order will automatically trigger the revocation of an individual’s right to be in the UK, including pre-settled status.”

They’ve said they are offering him an opportunity to tell them everything, once and for all.

But as we hit the two-week deadline set by the US Congress committee investigating Jeffrey Epstein for a reply from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, will he agree to their request to open up about the paedophile financier?

The letter sent by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said members wanted to talk to him because of the widely reported allegations that have been made against him, which he denies, and because of his relationship with Epstein and what he may have seen.

The committee is looking into Epstein’s crimes and his wider sex trafficking network. Andrew was given until today, 20 November, to respond.

Legally he isn’t obliged to talk to them, and to be honest it’s hard to imagine why he would.

The only time he has spoken at length about the allegations against him and his relationship with Epstein was that Newsnight interview in 2019, and we all know how much of a disaster that was.

Yes, this could be an opportunity for him to publicly apologise for keeping up his links with Epstein, which he has never done before, or show some sympathy towards Epstein’s victims, even as he vehemently denies the allegations against him.

But while there is the moral argument that he should tell the committee everything he knows, it could also raise more uncomfortable questions for him, and that could feel like too much of a risk for Andrew and the wider Royal Family.

However, even saying no won’t draw all this to a close. There are other outstanding loose ends.

The Metropolitan Police still have to tell us if they intend to take any further action after they said they were looking into claims Andrew had asked one of his officers to dig up dirt on his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

Read more:
King formally strips Andrew of prince title
Bill to release Epstein files gets all-clear from Congress

There could also still be a debate in parliament about the Andrew problem.

The Liberal Democrats have said they want to use their opposition debating time to bring the issue to the floor of the House of Commons, while other MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have signalled their intention to look into Andrew’s finances and housing arrangements.

And then there are the wider Epstein files over in America, and what information they may hold.

From developments this week, it seems we are edging ever closer to seeing those released.

All of this may mean Andrew in other ways is forced to say more than he wants to, even without opening up to the Congress committee.

The novel has survived the industrial revolution, radio, television, and the internet. Now it’s facing artificial intelligence – and novelists are worried.

Half (51%) fear that they will be replaced by AI entirely, according to a new survey, even though for the most part they don’t use the technology themselves.

More immediately, 85% say they think their future income will be negatively impacted by AI, and 39% claim their finances have already taken a hit.

Tracy Chevalier, the bestselling author of Girl With A Pearl Earring and The Glassmaker, shares that concern.

“I worry that a book industry driven mainly by profit will be tempted to use AI more and more to generate books,” she said in response to the survey.

“If it is cheaper to produce novels using AI (no advance or royalties to pay to authors, quicker production, retainment of copyright), publishers will almost inevitably choose to publish them.

“And if they are priced cheaper than ‘human made’ books, readers are likely to buy them, the way we buy machine-made jumpers rather than the more expensive hand-knitted ones.”

Why authors are so worried

The University of Cambridge’s Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy asked 258 published novelists and 74 industry insiders how AI is viewed and used in the world of British fiction.

Alongside existential fears about the wholesale replacement of the novel, many authors reported a loss of income from AI, which they attributed to “competition from AI-generated books and the loss of jobs which provide supplementary streams of income, such as copywriting”.

Some respondents reported finding “rip-off AI-generated imitations” of their own books, as well books “written under their name which they haven’t produced”.

Last year, the Authors Guild warned that “the growing access to AI is driving a new surge of low-quality sham ‘books’ on Amazon”, which has limited the number of publications per day on its Kindle self-publishing platform to combat the influx of AI-generated books.

The median income for a novelist is currently £7,000 and many make ends meet by doing related work, such as audiobook narration, copywriting or ghost-writing.

Read more: The author embracing AI to help write novels

These tasks, authors feared, were already being supplanted by AI, although little evidence was provided for this claim, which was not possible to verify independently.

Copyright was also a big concern, with 59% of novelists reporting that they knew their work had been used to train AI models.

Of these, 99% said they did not give permission and 100% said they were not remunerated for this use.

Earlier this year, AI firm Anthropic agreed to pay authors $1.5bn (£1.2bn) to settle a lawsuit which claimed the company stole their work.

The judge in the US court case ruled that Anthropic had downloaded more than seven million digital copies of books it “knew had been pirated” and ordered the firm to pay authors compensation.

However, the judge sided with Anthropic over the question of copyright, saying that the AI model was doing something akin to when a human reads a book to inspire new work, rather than simply copying.

Read more from Sky News:
Scientists sound alarm over ultra-processed foods
‘What is it really like being a British journalist in Moscow?’

Most novelists – 67% – never used it for creative work, although a few said they found it very useful for speeding up drafting or editing.

One case study featured in the report is Lizbeth Crawford, a novelist in multiple genres, including fantasy and romance. She describes working with AI as a writing partner, using it to spot plot holes and trim adjectives.

“Lizbeth used to write about one novel per year, but now she can do three per year, and her target is five,” notes the author of the report, Dr Clementine Collett.

Is there a role for government?

Despite this, the report’s foreword urges the government to slow down the spread of AI by strengthening copyright law to protect authors and other creatives.

The government has proposed making an exception to UK copyright law for “text and data mining”, which might make authors and other copyright holders opt out to stop their work being used to train AI models.

“That approach prioritises access to data for the world’s technology companies at the cost to the UK’s own creative industries,” writes Professor Gina Neff, executive director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy.

“It is both bad economics and a betrayal of the very cultural assets of British soft power.”

A government spokesperson said: “Throughout this process we have, and always will, put the interests of the UK’s citizens and businesses first.

“We’ve always been clear on the need to work with both the creative industries and AI sector to drive AI innovation and ensure robust protections for creators.

“We are bringing together both British and global companies, alongside voices beyond the AI and creative sectors, to ensure we can capture the broadest possible range of expert views as we consider next steps.”