Daniel Frost, 44, a father of two from Southampton, was jailed for two years and four months at Southampton Crown Court. He was sent to prison for violent disorder and possessing an offensive weapon - a dog lead with a metal carabiner which he had fashioned into a "makeshift knuckleduster". Reece Robinson, 21, from Havant, was jailed for two years for violent disorder. He was sentenced for throwing two stones or small bricks during the protest in the Portswood area on 2 June. The sentences were for their part in the violent disorder during a demonstration after the murder of Mr Nowak, an 18-year-old student. Judge William Mousley KC said of the disorder: "This violence was a hate crime borne out of a hatred for police and in some part racist views. "The impact on the community was profound, local residents were subjected to fear, distress and genuine sense of danger." Siobhan Linsley, prosecuting, previously told the court that Frost was visible in police body-worn video shown to the court wearing a camouflage face-covering as he threw chairs from a garden into the road in front of the officers. She said the defendant then "somewhat ostentatiously wraps the rope around his arm and the clip around his hand, forming what the observing officers feared to be a handmade knuckle duster". Ms Linsley added: "In response to hearing this, the defendant said it was a dog lead but repeatedly invited the officers to come and take it from him." After he was arrested, Frost described the disorder as "a big party", said Ms Linsley. She said that Frost had 25 previous convictions for 55 offences, including a six-year sentence for robbery and GBH, weapons offences, public order offences and burglary offences. Describing Robinson's involvement, Ms Linsley said: "Mr Robinson was seen at the disorder on St Denys Road, he was topless with an orange high vis vest around his neck obscuring his face. "He bent down to pick up small stones or bricks on two occasions and throws them towards the police cordon." She added that when Robinson, who has no previous convictions or cautions, was arrested, he told officers: "I didn't really do much." Judge Mousley, turning to Robinson, said: "You were present throughout the violence and could have left at any time. "You have brought shame to your family." Bridget O'Hagan, defending, told the judge in mitigation that Robinson's involvement was "totally out of character" and borne out of a "moment of madness". Frost and Robinson were the third and fourth men to be jailed following the sentencing of Leon O'Leary, 41, from Basingstoke, and Connor Bishop, 24, of Southampton, on Tuesday. O'Leary was jailed at the same court for three years and one month for violent disorder, resisting a police officer and possession of an offensive weapon - a samurai sword in his bedroom. Bishop was jailed for two years and eight months for violent disorder.

Davies said it was "goodbye" from him to Doctor Who but "hello to a big new future for the show", as he shared on social media a drawing of the Tardis - the spaceship from the hit show. The 2026 Christmas special was due to be written by Davies and produced by Bad Wolf, and would follow on from the series finale in May last year, which saw Ncuti Gatwa's incarnation of the Doctor regenerate into Billie Piper. The corporation announced last October there would be a 2026 Christmas special, but confirmed on Wednesday it will no longer happen. Davies, an award-winning screenwriter and TV producer, said on Instagram: "There won't be a Christmas Special - we only cooked that up to guarantee a future when no one knew what would happen, but now we do know, there's no need for it. "You'll have to wait a bit longer for new Doctor Who...but you'll be waiting for more Doctor Who than a one-off. So it's worth it!" He also said he was "excited as anyone to see what comes next" and reflected on the possible changes to come, adding: "Will they keep the theme tune? Will they lose the blue box? Will they bring back the Drahvin?! "It's all up for grabs, which is so Doctor Who - exciting and unpredictable and new! Here comes the future." The BBC said that the series, which launched in 1963, will be put out to "competitive tender" this year as part of its Royal Charter agreement. The broadcaster is inviting production companies to put themselves forward to help co-produce the next series, BBC News reported. Cancelling the Christmas special was "not taken lightly", the corporation said, and the BBC admitted the move will be "disappointing for fans". It added that "in order to set the show up for future series, it was decided that rather than bridge the gap with a one-off special, we are choosing to push forward to invest in the long-term future of the show". A spokesperson for the BBC added: "Doctor Who remains an important part of the BBC and this tender underpins the BBC's continued commitment to Doctor Who, ensuring audiences will enjoy the show for years to come." In addition, the corporation assured that its previously announced Doctor Who animation series, which will air on CBeebies, is currently in production. Read more from Sky News:Henry Nowak protesters jailedUkraine strikes Russian factory Doctor Who is about an eccentric Time Lord who travels in a spaceship larger on the inside, which disguises itself as a 1960s British police box. Tom Baker, Sylvester McCoy and William Hartnell are among the stars who portrayed The Doctor in the original show, which was cancelled in 1989. It was later revived in 2005 by Davies. Actors including Christopher Eccleston, David Tennant, Matt Smith and Jodie Whittaker have played the leading role in the last two decades.

The protracted absence of the government's "defence investment plan", which is already more than six months late, has even prompted some people to ask whether a sweeping review of defence that was released last year might now need a "refresh". This is not an idea that is under official consideration – as far as I can tell. But the mere fact the words "strategic defence review refresh" are being speculated in the margins is a sign of growing unease about what is happening with the UK's stuttering efforts to rearm at a time of increased threats. Sir Keir Starmer, addressing a major security conference in Munich in February, talked about the need for Britain and its European allies to strengthen their militaries. "We must build our hard power, because that is the currency of the age," he said. But the failure by his government since then to finalise its defence investment blueprint means much of the UK's defence industry – vital for any war effort – is waiting in limbo. In an indication of disarray behind the scenes, government and industry officials had been preparing for the investment plan to come out this Thursday. That date will almost certainly now slide by at least 24 hours – quite possibly longer – after the latest offer of additional money from the Treasury fell too far short of what the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is looking for. The case for the defence As part of the discussions, there is thought to be a desire from the defence industry for the government to commit to a clear timeline for increasing military spending to 3% of GDP from around 2.3% at present. Such a move would guarantee tens of billions of pounds in extra funding within a more certain timeframe than the current pledge, which is for the uplift merely to happen at some unspecified point during the next parliament. There is also an ambition for a clearer pathway to meet an ultimate goal to boost defence expenditure to a new baseline of 3.5% of GDP that was set last year by all NATO allies. Sir Keir has so far pledged to achieve this by 2035. But that is the latest possible date by which the alliance has said the target could be met and some allies are moving much faster, leaving the UK in the slow lane even though it prides itself as being a leading member of NATO. With or without a firm date for at least the 3% target to be reached, the MoD needs to accept what the Treasury is offering in terms of extra funding before the defence investment plan can be finalised. As of Tuesday evening, it's thought this had not happened. But there still appears to be a desire for the prime minister to make an announcement on the investment plan on Friday, even though parliament will not be sitting. Here's what could happen One possibility is that Sir Keir is able to say it is finished, give some topline figures and talk about investment in priority programmes such as a multi-billion-pound agreement with Japan and Italy to develop the next generation of highly sophisticated fast jets. That could then be followed by the full document being published next week. Or else, the whole thing is yet again delayed, though the prime minister has said it will be released before the next NATO summit on 7-8 July. The proposed settlement for additional defence investment, which is thought to range from an extra £12bn to £18bn over four years, is still less than what the MoD wants, but the upper end is probably just about manageable. However, the Treasury is thought to have gone back to defence with an offer at the lower end. If that is the final deal, it could mean more defence cuts, while efforts to rebuild the military would happen at an even slower pace. How did it come to this? Last June's Strategic Defence Review was meant to be the defining document on the armed forces of the Starmer government. It set out the parlous state of the army, navy and air force following decades of underinvestment since the end of the Cold War. The review then mapped out a plan for modernisation, transformation and rearmament, which could be accelerated should the government agree to spend more. This body of work, led by Lord George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary, should have been followed last autumn by the defence investment plan, which would explain how the vision would be funded. It was always going to be a challenge because the Treasury's original spending envelope was never enough to avoid significant, further cuts to capabilities. So began a protracted and at times tense negotiation between the MoD, the Treasury and Number 10 on what the new funding figures for the military should be. More from Sky News:UK set for another heatwaveThomas Tuchel gives World Cup update The decision for the prime minister has long been whether to go all-in and give a lot more to defence at the cost of other departments or to heed Treasury caution about the military's poor track record at spending its already sizeable budget. Yet, months on, there is still no clarity, creating uncertainty for the entire defence community at a time when it should be preparing for the possibility of war. Asked previously about the defence investment plan, an MoD spokesperson has said: "The defence investment plan will deliver the best kit into the hands of our armed forces. We are working hard to finalise it, and it will be published as soon as possible."

Sky Sports News has been told he will not be taking over as Fulham boss, nor any other club in the near future. Ipswich are protected financially should he decide to take up a new role in the next 12 months. They would be due compensation in line with the remaining time left in his contract up until the one-year mark. The current figure stands at around £7m. Transfer Centre LIVE! | Ipswich transfer news & gossipGot Sky? Watch Ipswich games LIVE on your phone📱Not got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW📺Choose the Sky Sports push notifications you want! 🔔 Speaking in a statement confirming his departure after five seasons in charge at Portman Road, McKenna outlined that it was the right time for him to step aside after securing a third promotion in the last four years with the club. "It is with a mixture of gratitude, pride, sadness and contentment that I have decided to step down from the honour of managing this historic football club," McKenna said. "When you have the connection that we have built at this club, there is never a good time to say goodbye. "However, having achieved a second promotion to the Premier League last season, with another memorable final day in our stadium, and after reflection over the last couple of weeks, I feel this is the right time for me to step aside. "I do so with great pride at the incredible progress we have made and with huge hope and optimism for the future of the club."

Afghan national Mohammad Tajik, 32, was sentenced to two years in prison at Canterbury Crown Court on Wednesday due to his involvement in a crossing on 17 January. Tajik abandoned the dinghy he was driving across the English Channel and its passengers when a rescue ship arrived, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. The boat was overcrowded and some passengers were not wearing life jackets during the attempted crossing in poor weather conditions. Prosecutor Daniel Bunting said Tajik had: "No experience or knowledge of piloting a boat, he was asking others to look on YouTube for assistance." At the same time, Sudanese national Alnour Ali, 26, was sentenced by the court to two years and three months in prison over his role in a separate crossing. Ali had admitted to the charge of endangering others during a sea crossing on 9 April. On the same day, two men and two women drowned after being swept away by strong currents while trying to climb on to a dinghy at Equihen-Plage, near Boulogne-sur-Mer in France. However, Judge James made clear that Ali was not being sentenced in relation to those four deaths and hit out at misinformation, which they branded as "unhelpful". Drone footage was played in court of the boat with 74 people on board, where Ali is seen driving while wearing a pink hat. Passengers were seen in the footage straddling the side of the boat; some had their legs dangling in the water. A French boat came up alongside the dinghy and handed out life-jackets, at which point Mr Bunting said Ali had the opportunity to stop. Sentencing them, Judge Simon James said: "The inherent dangers of seeking to navigate one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world in a vessel which was never designed to undertake such a journey are obvious. "However, the risk of death and serious injury are significantly increased when boats have no navigational aides, are overcrowded and those on board are not adequately equipped with safety equipment." Read more from Sky News:Ukrainian strikes hit arms factory and oil refinery deep in RussiaHundreds of phones and laptops lost by MoD Barrister Paul Hogben told the court Ali was of good character and was ordered to steer the boat by armed people traffickers when he embarked. He was born in a village in the Darfur region of Sudan where he and his parents, three brothers and six sisters were forced to flee their home during the civil war. The court also heard from barrister Niall Doherty, defending Tajik, that the father-of-one left Afghanistan after witnessing the Taliban shoot and kill his father and brother for refusing to put yellow powder in food served to soldiers in their restaurant, which they believed would have fatal consequences. Fearing he would be targeted, he fled to seek asylum, first trying in Greece where he was refused, before travelling on to Europe and the UK. The pair both have submitted claims for asylum since being in the UK, the court heard. What is the new offence? Endangering others during a journey by sea to the UK is a new offence that came into force in January as part of new border security legislation. Under the offence, those who endanger or risk another life at sea could face up to five years in prison. That rises to a maximum of six years for those in breach of a deportation order. According to the Home Office, the offence is designed to stop people being crammed into unsafe boats and would apply to those involved in physical aggression and intimidation, as well as anyone who resists rescue. It covers physical or psychological injury and journeys by water to the UK from France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Artist Talay Riley, whose real name was Mark Orabiyi, died after he was found with stab wounds in Silvertown on Friday, the Metropolitan Police said. The Grammy award-winning songwriter was pronounced dead at the scene. The musician worked with Dua Lipa, Britney Spears, Ellie Goulding and numerous other artists. He has almost 77,000 listeners on Spotify and had toured with Usher and other artists. In a tribute on social media, his brother, artist Scribz Riley, whose real name is Michael Orabiyi, said: "My heart is shattered! This doesn't feel real. It feels like a bad dream. Just before he went to sleep we spoke about the future, staying positive and about everything we still had left to do. I never imagined that would be our last conversation." He added his brother was a "friend to many, a mentor, an inspiration, and a light in so many people's lives". "He loved deeply, gave freely, and touched countless people through his talent, kindness, and spirit," he said. Rapper Stormzy commented on the post: "I'm sorry bro", while singer Kehlani wrote "Big hugs Scribs I'm so sorry" and British rapper Wretch 32 said: "Sending love to you & your family bro. Your brother was a gem & will be missed & never forgotten, Never! RIP." Craig David, Paloma Faith and Oritse Williams also joined in the social media tributes. "Omg I am in shock. I had no idea I worked with him quite a few times and he was such and amazing talent and fun person to be around," Paloma Faith said. In a statement, Orabiyi's family said: "Mark was a beloved son, brother, uncle and friend. He brought love, light and joy to our family and to all who knew him. "We will always cherish his kindness, beautiful spirit and remarkable talent. His presence touched many lives, and his memory will remain in our hearts forever. "May his soul rest in perfect peace." A second man in his 20s, who suffered stab wounds in the incident on Friday, remains in hospital, police said. His condition is not believed to be life-threatening. Three people have been arrested on suspicion of murder in connection with the incident, the Metropolitan Police said. A 27-year-old man has been released on bail pending further inquiries. A 24-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman were released with no further action after police questioning. The artist received a writing credit for the song Lights On on R&B artists H.E.R's self-titled album, which won a Grammy in 2019.

Has the unrest in Belfast sparked a new political battle over Britain's immigration system? Political leaders have condemned the violent overnight protest after a Sudanese national was charged with attempted murder of a man in the city. With parties scrambling to seize control of the narrative, Sam Coates and Anne McElvoy examine how the case has reignited questions about immigration, border security and the UK's system of indefinite leave to remain. Elsewhere, Nigel Farage holds his first major news conference since the local and national elections. Will Reform face renewed scrutiny over immigration decisions made by some of its leading figures during their time in Conservative government? You can find the full list of candidates standing in the Makerfield by-election here.

The Toffees were deducted 10 points in late 2023 for financial misdemeanours, a punishment reduced to six points on appeal a few months later, under the previous regime of Farhad Moshiri. Everton finished four points above 18th-placed Burnley in 2021/22 but the Lancashire club successfully argued that had the six-point penalty for PSR breaches been applied that season then they would have survived at the Toffees' expense. Transfer Centre LIVE! | Everton news & transfers🔵Everton fixtures & scores | FREE Everton highlights▶️Got Sky? Watch Everton games LIVE on your phone📱Not got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW📺Choose the Sky Sports push notifications you want! 🔔 Everton officials have lodged an immediate appeal at what they view as a "flawed" judgment. Sky Sports News understands that the club are astonished and will vigorously contest what they see as a flawed and hugely excessive judgment. An Everton statement said: "Everton Football Club is surprised and angered by the decision of a Premier League Independent Disciplinary Commission to order a compensation payment to Burnley Football Club in relation to Everton's PSR breach in June 2022," said a club statement. "Everton has appealed the decision and is clear in its belief the ruling is fundamentally flawed in both law and fact. "The club does not recognise the findings of the panel in determining Burnley's relegation from the Premier League in May 2022 was caused by a sporting advantage gained by Everton due to a breach of Profit & Sustainability Rules, for which a substantive sporting sanction has already been received. "This ruling sets a dangerous and unworkable precedent for English football, given it is constructed on a principle that a club can be in breach of financial rules at any point in a financial year. "Everton believes the panel's ruling misrepresents the clear evidence presented by its legal representatives and that an appeal will be successful." Everton's compensation order was £26m, plus interest of £9.1m. Burnley are believed to have sought £51.7m in recompense but Everton fundamentally disputed the calculation of the extent of the financial loss. Burnley chairman Alan Pace also released a statement, praising the decision after stating the competition had been "compromised" by Everton's breaches. "When we were relegated in 2022, we disappointingly accepted the outcome on the pitch. What we could not accept and what no club should be asked to accept was competing in a competition later shown to have been compromised," Pace said. "We did not come to this lightly. When resolution through every available channel was declined, formal action was imposed as the only path left to us. "The Independent Commission has now confirmed, in clear terms, that a rule was broken and a competitive advantage was improperly gained. "Our action has always been about making football fair. Clubs that comply with the rules deserve to compete on a level playing field. Fans deserve it. The sport demands it. "The Commission's decision affirms the existing framework to protect the game." Other clubs had explored the possibility of suing but did not proceed and there are no further cases outstanding against the club. Everton were judged to have overspent by £19.5m for the accounting period. However, they argue they were unaware they were going to be in breach and there were six weeks between Burnley being relegated and the end of their financial year when they could have taken steps to avoid the breach. 'Decision potentially sets a precedent' Analysis from Sky Sports News' Geraint Hughes: I'm going to have to take you back to 2022 to 2024. Everton in November of 2023 were deducted 10 points for breaches of PSR rules. That was reduced on appeal in February 2024 to six points. The accounting period it relates to ended in 2022, so Burnley - under Premier League rules - are able to seek compensation from any club if they feel they have suffered losses due to a breach of Premier League rules - in this case, Everton breaking PSR rules. Burnley were relegated in 2022 and their argument is that the Everton PSR breach relates to a period that ended when they were relegated. Everton's counter-argument was yes, it was, but it was during the period when the accounting period hadn't ended and nonetheless, around that point in May/June of 2022, they were completely unaware they had breached Premier League rules. As you remember, the 10-point deduction came in November of 2023, so that's all the legalities around it. When Burnley were relegated in 2022, had they stayed in the Premier League and not been relegated to the Championship, they are going to be some financial differences there. What is Everton's punishment? Financial. It's around the £35m mark, but that £26m to be paid to Burnley, plus interest. They've effectively sued, because they are allowed to within the rules. This Premier League commission has come back and said Burnley are right in their legal argument and they should be awarded compensation of £35m. Everton, clearly, are not happy with this and they released quite a strong statement as well. Breaking it down in terms of the law, this is the first time this has ever happened. This rule that allowed Burnley to sue Everton is the first time a club has done that. It's effectively a test case. It potentially sets a precedent. What's next? It's too soon to say it sets a legal precedent. It does on its own, but Everton have immediately said they will appeal. If you ask me what's going to happen, the law works at a different pace of life. My best guess would be later this year at the earliest, but the outcome of the appeal could be where the test case ends and becomes a legal precedent. We potentially have many other clubs watching this and they could be in the future, under Premier League rules, they have the right to sue a club for what they perceive as financial losses incurred due to a breach of rules by another club.