LG Mobile marketing manager John Bernard said: LG Mobile has an association with Liverpool and Fulham in the Premiership already. We are talking to a number of Premiership clubs and it is hoped that we will be the shirt sponsor of a Premiership team by the start of next season.

LG Mobile is the official handset partner of both Fulham and Liverpool.

A spokesman for Tottenham Hotspur said: Our response is the same as it would be to player transfer speculation. It is just speculation and we do not comment on that.

Spurs 2.5 million-per-year deal with holiday firm Thomson expires this summer. Fulhams shirt sponsorship deal with Internet service provider Pipex expires at the end the 2006/07 season. Liverpool is thought to be on the verge of signing a new deal with current shirt sponsor Carlsberg.

Hurring also now runs the independent channel as well as independent service providers.

But rumours were circulating earlier this week that Nick Griffin the man who deals with Vodafones distributors had also left the company.

Griffin was a protege of Graham who it now transpires was sacked after disagreeing with a reorganisation ordered by Vodafone enterprise business unit director Kyle Whitehill.

According to one source:

Whitehill put Libby Barr Vodafones corporate sector head for IT and telecoms in charge of all sales. Iain objected and was virtually thrown off the premises.

The source who is close to Vodafone said it looked like Hurring a Barr appointee was establishing his own regime and putting in his own acolytes.

Griffin unexpectedly went on holiday last week.

BT has long touted the device which switches calls between fixed-line and mobile networks depending on the users proximity to a base station in the home or office as the future of telephony.

We are weeks away now from making an announcement said a BT spokesman. A date has not yet been fixed but it will be around June 15. We will say more after that time. We dont want to talk about it prior to the launch. But we have said that we are launching and we will launch.

Bluephone connects to a BT wireless access point in the home or office via Bluetooth and switches calls from mobile to BTs fixed-line network as appropriate. BT announced a deal with Vodafone a year ago so that when the user is out of range the calls will be carried on the Vodafone network.

Previously Orange only offered its advanced business services to companies with more than 50 employees.

Called Business Plus the package offers companies a free answerphone no per minute charges between Business Plus colleagues 24-hour handset replacement loyalty discounts mid-contract tariff review and unautomated customer services.

Call bundles are selected by the customer.

Mobile pricing and services have been far too complex and discriminated against businesses according to size said Alastair MacLeod vice-president of Orange Business Solutions.

While every business is different and some will need the additional services that Orange provides it makes sense to create a single consistent and compelling proposition for businesses of all sizes said MacLeod.

Even if you combine all the services our competitors offer businesses as standard it is still nowhere near comparable to the level of service we offer.

See feature page 28

This gives us a retail footprint stretching from Southampton to Whitney across to Wales.

The buy-out follows JAGs acquisition of 15 West Talk branded stores in May last year.

Communications Centre wanted to get out of retail but keep its business to business side going which is exactly what West Talk opted to do as part of the deal last year. Both times its been a perfect fit for us because we wanted to grow. If we tried to be a national chain with 71 stores wed be spread very thinly so what were trying to do instead is to be a major player in our small area and that is working very well for us. The branding side of things is very different to when we bought West Talk because none of the Communications Centre stores conflict with the location of existing JAG ones.

It will be a simple case of just changing the signs over the next few months. With West Talk we were both in certain areas so we werent able just to change them to JAG because it would not have made sense to have two JAG stores so close by.

Weve got five more JAG stores opening in the next months starting with this weekend which will take us up to 76 stores.

20:20 has committed to purchasing 250000 Emblaze branded handsets over 12-months.

It will provide warehousing logistical solutions inventory management next day delivery handset customisation and management of online sales and fulfilment

Emblaze Mobile CEO Laurence Alexander said: We conducted a beauty parade with all the UK distributors and 20:20 came out top. It has great experience and flexibility and a great logistical team. The handsets are with the operators now and are awaiting approval.

20:20 has taken the devices to retailers and operators and the response has been very positive. Its volume predictors reflect that. This deal puts Emblaze firmly on the map.

20:20 Group managing director Mark Ryan said: We know Emblaze will launch three to four killer products over the next 12 months which are well suited to our customers. Given the total volume of handsets that we sell an estimated 250000 is eminently achievable. Over the last few years we have looked at many new names.

Emblaze stands out and offers a value for money proposition. Its management team are prepared to invest heavily in the UK market. It has a long-term game plan for market share growth and not just short-term gain.

Emblaze will launch in September with two handsets called Desire 20 and Sting 10. It has already announced that it will provide handsets for the new ROK Mobile MVNO which will see content preloaded onto memory cards.

The Emblaze Desire 20 is a two megapixel camera phone with a swivel screen. The Sting 10 has a 1.3 megapixel camera with flash and 4x digital zoom. Both handsets will appear earlier in continental markets. Emblaze has four other devices in development including a 3G handset for launch in 2006.

Said Alexander: We wont make a 3G play before the end of the year largely because we dont feel that the platform is strong enough yet for any 3G devices. We expect that market to kick off properly next year.

Phone Division director Javed Mohammed moved to put the company into liquidation having called called it a day after a long fight against the VAT man.

Phone Division which purchased UK stocks of mobile phones for export ceased active trading in 2003.

Mohammed retained the business as a shell company while he pursued claims against Customs & Excise.

However a disputed claim for 80000 against him by the Inland Revenue forced his hand and he started liquidation proceedings earlier this month.

A creditors meeting will be held in Mayfair London on July 4 by Leicester-based insolvency specialists HKM LLP.

Kiran Mistry an insolvency practitioner at HKM LLP said:

Phone Division is not in liquidation yet. We were instructed to convene the meeting with creditors. It does not appear to have any third party creditors.

Mr Mohammed kept the business alive just so he could pursue claims against Customs & Excise.

He was anxious that he got as far as he could with the legal case against Customs.

But he hasnt traded since 2003 and he decided to knock it on the head when he couldnt pay a disputed 80000 to the Inland Revenue.

Mistry added: That is when he decided to put the company into liquidation. That is as much as we know at the moment.

Mohammed was not available for comment.

The comments are by Mr Justice Crane in a 37-page judgment throwing out a VAT fraud trial at a cost of at least 61 million to the taxpayer.

Defendants Arif Chandoo. Amjad Baig Sandeep Gletcha Aqeel Ali and Jamal Uddin were discharged after the judge decreed their trial alleging conspiracies to cheat the public revenue could not proceed because HM Revenue & Customs had withheld vital evidence from both the defence team and its own prosecution team.

The men were arrested following a covert investigation Operation Venison into their mobile phone trading activities. The investigation was prompted by statements from freight forwarders Hawk Precision Logistics (see box far right).

Customs officers had not revealed that their two star witnesses from Hawk could no longer be relied on as witnesses of truth because they too were implicated in missing trader fraud.

Both Turner and HM Revenue & Customs prosecuting officer Andrew Biker were singled out by the judge.

Incredibly Biker had been criticised in connection with disclosure matters in 1996 in the Scott Report into the Matrix Churchill case – criticism that he appears not to recognise as such noted the judge.

Justice Crane said of Turner:

I was profoundly unimpressed by Brian Turners answers to cross-examining counsel: we dont need to give you a defence and your client knows better than me.

He reconsidered those answers when I took him back to them but they are not consistent with a proper attitude towards disclosure.

The main criticism must be of Brian Turner. I accept that he did not see all the intelligence on Hawk and that the material later disclosed had not been collected together.

However since he was an experienced investigator had participated in many of the discussions about disclosure in relation to prosecution witnesses and was aware of important intelligence on Hawk and of strong suspicions held by many about Hawk his failure at least to obtain counsels advice was inexcusable.

Justice Crane said Turner had failed to adhere to Customs code on dealing with witnesses.

This specifies that: The case officer is responsible for finding out whether there are any matters that may cast doubt on the credibility of a witness (although this may be delegated to the disclosure officer). All non-official witnesses should be checked and any record must be revealed to the prosecuting lawyer.

Justice Crane added: It is contended that the failure to disclose material about Hawk and the Hawk witnesses was deliberate. It is further contended that the defence and the court were being deliberately misled and the court process was deliberately manipulated.

Counsel for one of the defendants Anthony Barnfather of Pannone and Partners commented:

Despite assurances offered to Mr Justice Butterfield in the London City Bond case which resulted in the arrest of two Customs officers the culture of secrecy within Customs still prevails in this case.

Yet again a major case has collapsed through the inadequacy of the disclosure system. The judge in Operation Venison found that senior customs personnel withheld relevant information from their own barristers which resulted in the court being misled.

I have genuine sympathy for the lack of resources Customs suffers. But we all face that in the criminal justice system. However I find the fact of deliberate non-disclosure abhorrent. An example in this case proves the point.

A company was said to have set up missing traders in a chain. This was vehemently denied. The prosecution had material in its hands all along that tended to show another individual was responsible. (Cont p2)

The public deserves – and demands – to have full confidence in the prosecution agencies of the state. When that confidence is undermined ultimately it prejudices the fight against tax fraud.

Two central features of this case are that HM Revenue & Customs hadnt got its disclosure act together and the system isnt being adhered to properly.

Senior personnel have withheld relevant material from their own barristers. If someone perverts the course of justice they can be subject to prosecution.

Customs was putting Hawk personnel forward as witnesses whereas there was evidence that called into question Hawks reliability said Barnfather.

But he didnt believe the defeat would prevent Customs from prosecuting cases.

It wont mean Customs will cease launching prosecutions he said. Im involved in a case where 33 people have just been charged.

The public demands tax fraud be reduced. But there is a grave danger in a democracy when to achieve that the authorities go down the slippery slope of thinking they know best and take the law into their own hands – bypassing the statutory framework and the courts said Barnfather.

Don Mavin of tax consultants Chiltern added:

Both operations Vitric and Venison collapsed because the defence teams were able to show that Customs had abused the process of the court by failing to disclose information and documents which were relevant to and assisted in the defence case.

Customs had been asked repeatedly to confirm whether or not it had doubts about the reliability and honesty of certain freight handling companies such as Hawk Precision Logistics Pauls Freight and LCA International among others.

Customs was also asked to clarify the precise nature of the relationship between these companies and itself. But these questions were either completely ignored fudged or more worryingly answered dishonestly.

It was ultimately found that Customs did not view the witnesses from [Hawk] as truthful but attempted to conceal these doubts in the hope that their evidence would be admitted thus aiding the prosecutions case.

There are at least 60 missing trader fraud cases currently on the stocks – either within the court system or about to enter it he said.

Following the handing down of the judgment in Operation Venison Customs issued a statement in response (see below) to the effect that any lessons for the future have to be learned and acted upon swiftly and recognising the importance of ensuring defence teams are provided with all relevant material added Mavin.

But I doubt whether Customs will fully grasp and comply with its requirements as an investigating body with regard to disclosure material in these trials.

Mavin said it did not seem as if investigators and lawyers within Customs had learned from their failings in the London City Bond cases in the 90s after which a number of officers and high-level individuals within Customs became the subject of an investigation by the Metropolitan Police.

My understanding is that Customs intends to carry on with the missing trader prosecutions awaiting trial he said.

But I suspect at some stage in the not-too-distant future a decision is likely to be made not to proceed in a large number of these cases as a result of this ruling.

See Our Shout page 14

The comments are by Mr Justice Crane in a 37-page judgment throwing out a VAT fraud trial at a cost of at least 61 million to the taxpayer.

Defendants Arif Chandoo. Amjad Baig Sandeep Gletcha Aqeel Ali and Jamal Uddin were discharged after the judge decreed their trial alleging conspiracies to cheat the public revenue could not proceed because HM Revenue & Customs had withheld vital evidence from both the defence team and its own prosecution team.

The men were arrested following a covert investigation Operation Venison into their mobile phone trading activities. The investigation was prompted by statements from freight forwarders Hawk Precision Logistics (see box far right).

Customs officers had not revealed that their two star witnesses from Hawk could no longer be relied on as witnesses of truth because they too were implicated in missing trader fraud.

Both Turner and HM Revenue & Customs prosecuting officer Andrew Biker were singled out by the judge.

Incredibly Biker had been criticised in connection with disclosure matters in 1996 in the Scott Report into the Matrix Churchill case – criticism that he appears not to recognise as such noted the judge.

Justice Crane said of Turner:

I was profoundly unimpressed by Brian Turners answers to cross-examining counsel: we dont need to give you a defence and your client knows better than me.

He reconsidered those answers when I took him back to them but they are not consistent with a proper attitude towards disclosure.

The main criticism must be of Brian Turner. I accept that he did not see all the intelligence on Hawk and that the material later disclosed had not been collected together.

However since he was an experienced investigator had participated in many of the discussions about disclosure in relation to prosecution witnesses and was aware of important intelligence on Hawk and of strong suspicions held by many about Hawk his failure at least to obtain counsels advice was inexcusable.

Justice Crane said Turner had failed to adhere to Customs code on dealing with witnesses.

This specifies that: The case officer is responsible for finding out whether there are any matters that may cast doubt on the credibility of a witness (although this may be delegated to the disclosure officer). All non-official witnesses should be checked and any record must be revealed to the prosecuting lawyer.

Justice Crane added: It is contended that the failure to disclose material about Hawk and the Hawk witnesses was deliberate. It is further contended that the defence and the court were being deliberately misled and the court process was deliberately manipulated.

Counsel for one of the defendants Anthony Barnfather of Pannone and Partners commented:

Despite assurances offered to Mr Justice Butterfield in the London City Bond case which resulted in the arrest of two Customs officers the culture of secrecy within Customs still prevails in this case.

Yet again a major case has collapsed through the inadequacy of the disclosure system. The judge in Operation Venison found that senior customs personnel withheld relevant information from their own barristers which resulted in the court being misled.

I have genuine sympathy for the lack of resources Customs suffers. But we all face that in the criminal justice system. However I find the fact of deliberate non-disclosure abhorrent. An example in this case proves the point.

A company was said to have set up missing traders in a chain. This was vehemently denied. The prosecution had material in its hands all along that tended to show another individual was responsible. (Cont p2)

The public deserves – and demands – to have full confidence in the prosecution agencies of the state. When that confidence is undermined ultimately it prejudices the fight against tax fraud.

Two central features of this case are that HM Revenue & Customs hadnt got its disclosure act together and the system isnt being adhered to properly.

Senior personnel have withheld relevant material from their own barristers. If someone perverts the course of justice they can be subject to prosecution.

Customs was putting Hawk personnel forward as witnesses whereas there was evidence that called into question Hawks reliability said Barnfather.

But he didnt believe the defeat would prevent Customs from prosecuting cases.

It wont mean Customs will cease launching prosecutions he said. Im involved in a case where 33 people have just been charged.

The public demands tax fraud be reduced. But there is a grave danger in a democracy when to achieve that the authorities go down the slippery slope of thinking they know best and take the law into their own hands – bypassing the statutory framework and the courts said Barnfather.

Don Mavin of tax consultants Chiltern added:

Both operations Vitric and Venison collapsed because the defence teams were able to show that Customs had abused the process of the court by failing to disclose information and documents which were relevant to and assisted in the defence case.

Customs had been asked repeatedly to confirm whether or not it had doubts about the reliability and honesty of certain freight handling companies such as Hawk Precision Logistics Pauls Freight and LCA International among others.

Customs was also asked to clarify the precise nature of the relationship between these companies and itself. But these questions were either completely ignored fudged or more worryingly answered dishonestly.

It was ultimately found that Customs did not view the witnesses from [Hawk] as truthful but attempted to conceal these doubts in the hope that their evidence would be admitted thus aiding the prosecutions case.

There are at least 60 missing trader fraud cases currently on the stocks – either within the court system or about to enter it he said.

Following the handing down of the judgment in Operation Venison Customs issued a statement in response (see below) to the effect that any lessons for the future have to be learned and acted upon swiftly and recognising the importance of ensuring defence teams are provided with all relevant material added Mavin.

But I doubt whether Customs will fully grasp and comply with its requirements as an investigating body with regard to disclosure material in these trials.

Mavin said it did not seem as if investigators and lawyers within Customs had learned from their failings in the London City Bond cases in the 90s after which a number of officers and high-level individuals within Customs became the subject of an investigation by the Metropolitan Police.

My understanding is that

Customs intends to carry on with the missing trader prosecutions awaiting trial he said.

But I suspect at some stage in the not-too-distant future a decision is likely to be made not to proceed in a large number of these cases as a result of this ruling.

See Our Shout page 14

Operation Vitric – another missing trader fraud case – was stayed because as in Operation Venison the judge could not be satisfied Customs had fulfilled its legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence lawyers.

The defendants could not therefore be guaranteed a fair trial.

HM Revenue & Customs has now blown 400 million of taxpayers cash in court costs of all the trials now abandoned – equivalent to 12 for every person in the UK.