![Image]( "Mirror wins Campbell legal fee case")
Massive legal fees the Daily Mirror had to pay after losing a court battle with model Naomi Campbell were "disproportionate" and a breach of the newspaper's right to "freedom of expression", human rights judges have ruled.
The Mirror was ordered by British courts to pay Ms Campbell £3,500 in compensation for beaching her privacy by publishing "offensive and distressing" pictures, as well as articles revealing her treatment for drug addiction.
But Ms Campbell's legal costs, which the paper also had to pay, amounted to more than £1 million - including "success fees" of more than £365,000 agreed between the model and her lawyers.
The ruling in the European Court of Human Rights was against the UK Government, which sanctioned the "success fee" formula in which lawyers in "no win no fee" civil cases stand to gain hefty bonuses against the losing defendants.
A Government review of the arrangement is already under way, with a recommendation in the pipeline that lawyers in future should not get a "success fee" but a share of any damages awarded to the successful defendant. In the Campbell case that would have meant a portion of £3,500 - a fraction of the final payment the Mirror faced.
The Mirror complained to the Human Rights court that the privacy verdict in favour of Ms Campbell, as well as the amount of legal fees it had to pay, breached the paper's right to "freedom of expression", safeguarded by the Human Rights Convention. But the Strasbourg judges rejected that claim, saying a balance had to be struck between "the public interest in the publication of the articles and photographs of Ms Campbell, and the need to protect her private life".
The ruling continued: "Given that the sole purpose of the publication of the photographs and articles had been to satisfy the curiosity of a particular readership about the details of a public figure's private life, those publications had not contributed to any debate of general interest to society."
There was, therefore, a lower level of protection of freedom of expression for the newspaper, and the UK courts had correctly backed Ms Campbell's claim for breach of her right to respect for her private life. But on the "success fees", the Human Rights judges said the requirement to pay them was based on a UK law which had been designed to ensure the widest possible public access to legal services in civil cases, including to people who would not otherwise be able to afford a lawyer.
That did not apply to Ms Campbell, who was wealthy and therefore not lacking access to court on financial grounds. She was not the kind of person for whom the "success fees" scheme had been initially set up, and the judges said the UK Ministry of Justice had already acknowledged that the costs burden had become excessive and that "the balance had swung too far in favour of claimants and against the interests of defendants, particularly in defamation and privacy cases".
There was a risk to media reporting and freedom of expression, the verdict said, if the potential costs of defending a case risked putting pressure on the media and newspaper publishers to settle cases which could have been defended. Therefore, the judges concluded, "the requirement on Mirror Group Newspapers to pay the 'success fees', which had been agreed by Ms Campbell and her solicitors, was disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved by the introduction of the 'success fee' system."
An 18-year-old man was taken to hospital after being shot near a girls' grammar school.
An investigation to trace the gunman was under way, police said, confirming that the teenager had received a single gunshot wound.
He was taken by ambulance to the William Harvey Hospital at 8pm on Monday following the shooting in Frith Road, Dover, Kent, where the Dover Grammar School for Girls is located.
A Kent Police spokesman said: "Police are currently dealing with an incident in the Frith Road area of Dover following reports of a shooting which took place just after 8pm, where a man has received a single gunshot injury. The man has been taken to hospital where he is currently in a stable condition.
"Police are currently at the scene and there are a number of road closures in place around Frith Road, Charlton Green and Salisbury Road."
Jackie Bowles, landlady of The Louis Armstrong pub in nearby Maison Dieu Road, said: "There's lots of police activity and helicopters. They've shut the end of Salisbury Road and Bridge Street. The main activity seems to be at the grammar school.
Keith Thomas, landlord of the Red Lion pub, Charlton Green, said: "A policeman came into the pub and confirmed there had been a shooting.
"It's all still cordoned off and there's lots of police."
Police appealed for anyone who witnessed or has any information about the incident to contact them on 01622 690 690.
They warned that road closures may still remain in place on Tuesday morning.
Watered-down government plans to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price are so weak they will make little difference, campaigners have said.
The ban, expected to be announced later, was promised as part of efforts to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder which costs the taxpayer up to £13 billion each year.
But the much-touted move will see cost price defined as just duty plus VAT and will have little if any impact on cut-price supermarket deals, campaigners said.
A can of lager will cost at least 38p and a litre of vodka at least £10.71 under the move, it is understood.
It will be seen as a retreat from the coalition Government's pledge to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price and will stop short of setting a minimum price for the alcohol itself.
Doctors' leaders warned the ban "doesn't go far enough". "It's not minimum pricing, it's not really going to make that much difference," a spokeswoman for the British Medical Association (BMA) said. "What we're calling for is tough action."
Don Shenker, chief executive of Alcohol Concern, also warned that the move "will not go any way towards resolving this country's binge drinking problem".
"Duty is so low in the UK that it will still be possible to sell very cheap alcohol and be within the law," he said.
The British Beer and Pub Association added that while the ban "will stamp out the worst cases of below-cost selling", "it will not have a significant impact on low-priced alcohol in supermarkets".
Chief executive Brigid Simmonds added: "With 70% of alcohol now sold in the off-trade, there is a real need for the Government to do more to support the pub."
Apple boss Steve Jobs sparked new speculation about his health after announcing a second medical leave of absence in two years.
In the last decade, Mr Jobs, 55, the charismatic frontman for the company that overturned the smartphone industry and invented a new category of tablet computers, has survived a rare but curable form of pancreatic cancer and undergone a liver transplant.
The news that he will again step down from his day-to-day role raises serious questions about the CEO's health.
But analysts believe the company he shepherded from garage start-up to a 65 billion dollar (£42bn) technology trendsetter is in good hands with the current slate of talented executives - even as Apple, now the Silicon Valley player to beat, faces increasing competition.
Chief executive Mr Jobs has played the role of industry oracle, seeming to know what consumers want even before they do. He is also known as a demanding and hands-on leader who is involved in even the smallest details of product development.
Investors have pinned much of their faith in the company on Jobs himself, sending shares tumbling on every bit of news or rumour of his ailing health.
For now, very little is known about Mr Jobs' current condition. Apple did not provide any information beyond a six-sentence note from Mr Jobs to employees announcing his leave, leaving unanswered questions about whether he is acutely ill, whether the leave is related to his 2009 liver transplant or whether he is at home or in hospital.
Unlike Mr Jobs' 2009 leave of absence, when he vowed to return to work in just under six months, he did not say in the note made public yesterday how long he would be on leave this time. He said he would continue as CEO and be involved in major decisions.
Chief operating officer Tim Cook will be responsible for all day-to-day operations.
"I love Apple so much and hope to be back as soon as I can," Mr Jobs wrote. "In the meantime, my family and I would deeply appreciate respect for our privacy."
London Mayor Boris Johnson has backed a report calling for a brand new south east England airport.
Overseen by Transport for London deputy chairman Daniel Moylan, the report said the UK economy would suffer and London lose jobs to its European competitors unless a new hub airport was created in south east England.
Releasing the report, Mr Johnson said: "For London to retain its position as the heartbeat of global business, we need aviation links that will allow us to compete with our rivals."
While the coalition Government has ruled out new runways in south east England, Mr Johnson has long favoured a new airport in the Thames estuary.
The report does not specify a particular site for a new airport but another Mr Johnson-commissioned report later this year will consider a range of locations for new airport capacity.
This will include options for a new airport which could be in the Thames estuary, as well as consideration of existing sites with the exception of Heathrow.
Mr Johnson's backing for expansion not only puts him at possible loggerheads with the Government but also with those opposing airport growth, including residents' groups and conservationists.
The report said that in terms of destinations served by worldwide international airports, Heathrow had fallen from second in 1990 to seventh in 2010, with the number of destinations that can be directly accessed from Heathrow standing at 157 compared to 224 from Paris' Charles de Gaulle airport and 235 from Frankfurt.
Mr Johnson said: "The capital's airports are full, our runways are rammed and we risk losing jobs to Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Madrid or other European cities should we fail to act.
"No other city even approaches the volume of passengers handled at London's airports but we need to start planning for a brand new airport that can help meet the ever-increasing demand for aviation and act as a hub, particularly to the rest of the UK."
Christian hotel owners who refused a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.
Peter and Hazelmary Bull were breaking the law when they denied Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy a room at their hotel in Cornwall in September 2008.
Judge Andrew Rutherford made the ruling in a written judgment at Bristol County Court as he awarded the couple £1,800 each in damages.
Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, from Bristol, were seeking up to £5,000 damages claiming sexual orientation discrimination under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.
At a hearing last month, the Bulls denied the claim, saying they have a long-standing policy of banning all unmarried couples both heterosexual and gay from sharing a bed at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near Penzance.
Mr Bull, 70, and his wife, 66, said their policy, operated since they bought the hotel in 1986, is based on their beliefs about marriage and not a hostility to sexual orientation.
Mrs Bull told the court: "We accept that the Bible is the holy living word of God and we endeavour to follow it as far as we are able. We have a kind of routine we go through with folk. It is never our intention to offend so we try to make it as gracious and as helpful as we can."
James Dingemans QC, representing Mr and Mrs Bull, said they had been "vilified as objects of fun" in newspapers for only allowing married couples to stay in double rooms at their hotel.
He said: "The defendants respectfully submit that their policy is directed at sex and not to sexual orientation and is lawful. Without the protection of the law they will simply not be able to operate their business."
The Bulls' legal defence was supported by the Christian Institute while Mr Hall and Mr Preddy were backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Foreign Secretary William Hague has urged riot-torn Tunisia to hold free and fair elections to establish a new government.
Mr Hague said Britain welcomed developments following a month of protests and rioting which led to president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fleeing to Saudi Arabia on Friday after 23 years in power and prime minister Mohamed Ghannouchi announcing a national unity government.
But as unrest threatened to spread to other Middle East nations, the Foreign Secretary cautioned against assumptions that other countries would follow the same path as Tunisia.
Mr Hague, asked on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme if he welcomed developments there, said: "I think on the whole, yes, they are certainly welcome. It's not for us to judge the membership of the government of Tunisia, that's for the people of Tunisia.
"I think the important thing is these elections go ahead in a free and fair way and the people of Tunisia are able to choose.
"We should welcome the extension of freedom and democracy in any country and that includes Tunisia."
Mr Hague warned: "It's important to avoid thinking that the circumstances of one country are automatically replicated in another, even neighbouring, country."
But he said there was a "general lesson" that people expected economic and political development, including an independent judiciary, the rule of law and other basic freedoms.
"Britain will always be in favour of the steady extension of democracy and human rights," he said.
Back-from-the-dead canoeist John Darwin has been released from jail, sources have said.
The former prison officer was sentenced to six years and three months behind bars in July 2008 after admitting faking his own death in a canoeing accident to allow his wife Anne to make fraudulent insurance and pension claims.
He walked free from Moorland open prison in Doncaster, South Yorkshire, after serving less than half his sentence.
A probation service spokesman said: "All offenders subject to probation supervision on release from prison have to adhere to a set of strict conditions.
"They are subject to recall to custody if they breach their conditions or their behaviour indicates that it is no longer safe for them to remain in the community."
The Darwins were jailed for more than six years at Teesside Crown Court for the swindle which deceived the police, a coroner, financial institutions and even their sons Mark and Anthony.
The couple's plan to hoax insurers and pension schemes into believing Mr Darwin was dead was hatched as the couple faced losing their imposing seafront home in Seaton Carew, Hartlepool, in 2002. They had a 12-home property portfolio and were struggling to make mortgage repayments when he paddled into the sea in his home-made canoe and then disappeared.
Mrs Darwin's sons were tearfully told the tragic news and she walked round in a daze for weeks. The former doctor's receptionist then began the process of declaring her husband dead and conning insurers and pension funds out of £250,000.
In October 2007 Anne Darwin settled her affairs in the UK, having sold off the family's property portfolio, and emigrated to Panama, where she joined her husband. But then Darwin flew back to the UK and handed himself in to a central London police station, claiming he suffered amnesia and could remember nothing since 2000.
His wife, still in Panama, was tracked down by a journalist and pretended to be shocked at the back-from-the-dead miracle. But her story collapsed when a photograph was found on the internet showing the smiling couple posing in a Panama estate agents.
The rising cost of food, petrol and utility bills pushed the rate of inflation up to a higher-than-expected 3.7% in December, official figures have revealed.
The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) annual rate of inflation surged to its highest level since April, up from 3.3% in November, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said. Economists were expecting the rate to rise to 3.4%.
Prices increased by 1% between November and December in their biggest ever month-on-month rise since records began in 1996, the ONS added.
The rises were driven by a 1.6% increase in the price of food - the highest rise for a November to December period - and 3.6% rise in transport costs, the highest-ever monthly increase on record.
The higher-than-expected rise in CPI will add to pressure on the Bank of England, which is tasked with keeping inflation at its 2% target, to raise interest rates.
The Bank has battled with stubbornly high inflation all year, which it believes is being caused by temporary factors, such as spikes in commodity prices and January's VAT rise from 17.5% to 20%. CPI has been above its 2% target every month since November 2009.
The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) has resisted raising its base rate of interest from its all-time low of 0.5% despite growing pressure.
Jonathan Loynes, chief European economist at Capital Economics, said: "December's worse-than-expected UK consumer prices figures will do nothing to comfort those concerned that the MPC is neglecting its inflation-targeting remit. After all, the committee will have had the headline figures - showing CPI inflation rising from 3.3% to 3.7% - at its meeting last week."
The big freeze pushed up the price of vegetables in December as supplies were choked by disruption to the supply chain and crop damage. There were price hikes across most bread and cereals, aggravated by the wildfires that wrecked Russia's harvest and caused the country to impose an export ban.
The price rises brought in by utility companies also started to feed through to consumers in December, with gas particularly badly affected, pushing up the cost of housing and household services by 1.4%. Petrol prices also continued to rise to £1.22 per litre, said the ONS.
A bigger-than-expected rise in the cost of living in December has piled pressure on the Bank of England to raise interest rates in an effort to curb spiralling inflation.
The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rate of inflation surged to 3.7% last month, its highest level since April and up from 3.3% in November, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said. Economists were expecting the rate to rise to 3.4%.
Surging food costs, nudged up by the weather disruption, energy bills and petrol prices led to a month-on-month prices increase of 1% between November and December, the biggest monthly rise since records began in 1996, the ONS added.
The Bank, which is tasked with bringing inflation down to its 2% target, has resisted lifting interest rates from historic lows of 0.5% as the wider economy battles with slovenly growth. The rate of CPI has been above its 2% target every month since November 2009.
Policymakers at the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) believe the stubbornly-high inflation is being caused by temporary factors, such as spikes in commodity prices and January's VAT rise from 17.5% to 20%.
As the Chancellor's belt-tightening austerity measures start to kick in, the Bank will be under further pressure not to throw the fragile recovery off course.
Howard Archer, chief UK and European economist at IHS Global Insight, said: "Despite the undeniably significant risk to growth coming from the fiscal tightening that is now increasingly kicking in, there is mounting pressure on the Bank of England to enact at least a token near-term interest rate hike to send out the message that it has not taken its eye off the inflation ball."
But Philip Shaw, chief economist at brokers Investec, said a rate rise would put the recovery at risk. He said: "A sharp increase in rates certainly seems unjustified but any hike in rates at all now is potentially dangerous."
Brian Hilliard, economist at Societe Generale, said despite the pressures, he did not expect an interest rate hike next month.
He said: "The BoE has already predicted in the December minutes that the inflation rate would touch 4% in the spring so is unlikely to be bounced into a February rate increase by today's data or by January's, which should be provided to the MPC in time for that meeting."
A man arrested over alleged violence during the student fee protests has been released on bail, Scotland Yard has said.
The 24-year-old was picked up by officers on Friday on suspicion of violent disorder during the December 9 demonstration in central London. He has since been bailed until a date in June, the Metropolitan Police said.
Officers have arrested more than 200 people, most in their late teens and early 20s, since students first took to the streets on November 10 to protest at the proposed hike in student fees.
Last week, Hampshire student Edward Woollard was imprisoned for throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof of the Millbank complex which houses Conservative Party headquarters.
The 18-year-old was jailed for 32 months after admitting violent disorder during the first outbreak of student protest disorder.
Calls for voluntary redundancies among staff at a firm employing mainly disabled workers could result in around 1,500 job losses, union leaders have warned.
Remploy said it was constantly seeking to improve efficiency, adding that the scheme being offered to staff in its Enterprise Businesses and Central Service was "entirely voluntary".
The firm said its factory businesses had suffered under the current economic climate, with many operating at less than 50% capacity.
A spokesman said: "As a result, Remploy is not fulfilling its mission to provide sustainable employment opportunities for disabled people. We will ensure that any employee who decides to leave and wants to continue working will have guaranteed support from our employment services to find another job."
GMB national officer Phil Davies said: "The factory sites have since been starved of work because of an incompetent and overpaid management. This is in spite of the fact that the EU allows public authorities to place one contract with a supported workshop but the management have failed to take advantage of this provision.
"The trade unions will not accept this situation and will fight to stop the sell-off of disabled jobs. This is the harshest cut of all that this Government has proposed. To make things worse, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, publicly pledged his full support in 2008 to stop any Remploy factory closures."
Unite blamed "poor management" for the announcement, warning that half the 3,000 disabled employees, some of them severely disabled, could lose their jobs.
The union's new leader, Len McCluskey, called on the Government to intervene, adding: "What these employees face is a nightmare scenario of struggling to find new jobs in the toughest jobs market since the early 1990s, when we all know that disabled people are always at the back of the jobs queue. Ultimately, there is the prospect that some of these factories could close.
"If the Big Society means anything, it should be about helping those most in need of employment to secure work - with all the self-respect and financial security that brings. We will be campaigning against this voluntary redundancy programme during the 90-day consultation period."
Downing Street has warned that any attempt to change the 309-year-old law governing the royal succession would be a "difficult and complex matter".
MPs are to debate a motion by Labour backbencher Keith Vaz calling for an end to the rule of "primogeniture" which means that sons succeed to the throne ahead of daughters.
Mr Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, is expected to argue that if Prince William and Kate Middleton's first child is a girl, she should succeed ahead of any boys who may follow.
His motion, to be debated under the 10-minute rule procedure, calls for legislation to "remove any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown".
In practice, there is no prospect of amending the law without the support of the Government.
But while the Prime Minister's official spokesman acknowledged that elements of the 1701 Act of Succession - which also bars Roman Catholics from succeeding to the throne - are "discriminatory", he played down the prospects of change.
"Amending the Act of Succession is a complex and difficult matter that requires careful and thoughtful consideration," the spokesman said.
One problem which has confounded previous moves to reform the Act is that change would require parallel legislation in all the other Commonwealth nations of which the Queen is head of state.
Talks among the countries concerned have been ongoing for some time.
The Prime Minister's spokesman confirmed that they are still continuing but said that it would "not be appropriate" to release any details.
The Government's watered-down plans to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price will not resolve the problem of binge-drinking, campaigners have said.
Crime Prevention Minister James Brokenshire said the move was an important first step towards banning below-cost sales of alcohol.
But critics said the ban did not go far enough, making it a "green light for supermarkets to keep selling booze at pocket-money prices".
The ban was promised as part of efforts to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder which costs the taxpayer up to £13 billion each year.
But the much-touted move will see cost price defined as just duty plus VAT and will have little if any impact on cut-price supermarket deals, campaigners said.
A can of lager will cost at least 38p and a litre of vodka at least £10.71 under the move.
It will be seen as a retreat from the coalition Government's pledge to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price and will stop short of setting a minimum price for the alcohol itself.
Mr Brokenshire said: "By introducing this new measure we are sending a clear message that the Government will not stand by and let drink be sold so cheaply that it leads to a greater risk of health harms or drunken violence."
He went on: "We know that pricing controls can help reduce alcohol-related violent crime and this is a crucial step in tackling the availability of cheap alcohol.
"In nearly half of all violent incidents the offender is believed to be under the influence of alcohol. That's why we believe it is right to tackle the worst instances of deep discounting."
Police appear to be powerless to bring charges against people who distribute flyers warning potential informants against helping detectives, one of Britain's top officers admitted.
Scotland Yard is trying to find those behind "Stop Snitching" leaflets posted on an estate where a teenager was shot dead.
But the acting head of the Metropolitan Police conceded that his officers were likely to do little more than talk to the people responsible for the flyers.
Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin said: "I think it would be quite difficult to identify criminal offences within it. There may be stuff we can do in civil law, but I think it's more about having a chat with them. We need to identify them to have a little discussion."
The leaflets urging people to refuse to co-operate with the authorities were posted on the Pelican Estate, in Peckham, south-east London, where 17-year-old Sylvester Akapalara was killed last month.
Investigators offered potential witnesses protection and anonymity if they came forward in the hours after the attack.
Sylvester died after being chased into a stairwell in Heron House. Three teenagers have since been charged with murder.
Mr Goodwin said the Met's relationship with London's communities had improved "dramatically" over the past decade and people were now more willing to come forward with information.
"I think if people are then coming out and saying, 'please don't talk to the police, they are the enemy', that is because they now feel threatened," he said.
"So I see that as a positive sign, that we've got them worried. The individuals concerned need to be dealt with."
Massive legal fees the Daily Mirror had to pay after losing a court battle with model Naomi Campbell were "disproportionate" and a breach of the newspaper's right to "freedom of expression", human rights judges have ruled.
The Mirror was ordered by British courts to pay Ms Campbell £3,500 in compensation for beaching her privacy by publishing "offensive and distressing" pictures, as well as articles revealing her treatment for drug addiction.
But Ms Campbell's legal costs, which the paper also had to pay, amounted to more than £1 million - including "success fees" of more than £365,000 agreed between the model and her lawyers.
The ruling in the European Court of Human Rights was against the UK Government, which sanctioned the "success fee" formula in which lawyers in "no win no fee" civil cases stand to gain hefty bonuses against the losing defendants.
A Government review of the arrangement is already under way, with a recommendation in the pipeline that lawyers in future should not get a "success fee" but a share of any damages awarded to the successful defendant. In the Campbell case that would have meant a portion of £3,500 - a fraction of the final payment the Mirror faced.
The Mirror complained to the Human Rights court that the privacy verdict in favour of Ms Campbell, as well as the amount of legal fees it had to pay, breached the paper's right to "freedom of expression", safeguarded by the Human Rights Convention. But the Strasbourg judges rejected that claim, saying a balance had to be struck between "the public interest in the publication of the articles and photographs of Ms Campbell, and the need to protect her private life".
The ruling continued: "Given that the sole purpose of the publication of the photographs and articles had been to satisfy the curiosity of a particular readership about the details of a public figure's private life, those publications had not contributed to any debate of general interest to society."
There was, therefore, a lower level of protection of freedom of expression for the newspaper, and the UK courts had correctly backed Ms Campbell's claim for breach of her right to respect for her private life. But on the "success fees", the Human Rights judges said the requirement to pay them was based on a UK law which had been designed to ensure the widest possible public access to legal services in civil cases, including to people who would not otherwise be able to afford a lawyer.
That did not apply to Ms Campbell, who was wealthy and therefore not lacking access to court on financial grounds. She was not the kind of person for whom the "success fees" scheme had been initially set up, and the judges said the UK Ministry of Justice had already acknowledged that the costs burden had become excessive and that "the balance had swung too far in favour of claimants and against the interests of defendants, particularly in defamation and privacy cases".
There was a risk to media reporting and freedom of expression, the verdict said, if the potential costs of defending a case risked putting pressure on the media and newspaper publishers to settle cases which could have been defended. Therefore, the judges concluded, "the requirement on Mirror Group Newspapers to pay the 'success fees', which had been agreed by Ms Campbell and her solicitors, was disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved by the introduction of the 'success fee' system."
A fourth man has been arrested by Mauritian police investigating the murder of Michaela McAreavey.
He is a member of the security staff at the four-star Legends Hotel, police on the island confirmed.
On Monday, around 3,000 people attended the funeral of the Irish language teacher, 27, who was strangled a week ago on her honeymoon.
A spokesman for police in Mauritius confirmed a further person is in custody in connection with the murder.
He told the BBC: "He is one of the persons who was engaged in security work."
Three men, all staff at the luxury hotel, have been charged in connection with the killing, thought to have happened as newlywed Mrs McAreavey disturbed a burglary in her room.
Room attendant Avinash Treebhoowoon, 29, and floor superviser Sandip Moneea, 41, have been charged with murder, and room attendant Raj Theekoy, 33, with conspiracy to murder.
They are due to appear in court on Wednesday.
Mrs McAreavey, from near Ballygawley, Co Tyrone, was the daughter of Tyrone GAA (Gaelic Athletic Association) manager Mickey Harte.
On Monday her father and husband John carried her coffin as the crowd walked in silence to the church where she was married last month. She was buried in her wedding dress.
The oversight of undercover operations and the proportionality of covert tactics will be reviewed, inspectors have said.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) launched the review following concerns about the role played by ex-Metropolitan Police Pc Mark Kennedy, who spent a reported seven years under cover posing as an environmental activist.
The review will take into account separate inquiries by the police watchdog the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), and Scotland Yard, said HMIC.
Speaking about the role of undercover officer Mr Kennedy, Policing Minister Nick Herbert said: "It's clear to us all that something operationally has gone very wrong and that is now the subject of an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation.
"I think everybody is concerned by the Kennedy case and we have an IPCC precisely to investigate this kind of thing."
Concerns over the operational accountability of Mr Kennedy's unit, the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), were raised by MPs on the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.
Mr Herbert said there needed to be "proper accountability" for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which is running the unit until it can be transferred to Scotland Yard.
Inspector Bernard Hogan-Howe will conduct the HMIC review, said a spokesman.
Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, will also write to Acpo president Sir Hugh Orde over concerns that Mr Kennedy was given a £200,000 per year expenses account while working undercover.
The Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) said it had also been asked to carry out an independent review of Mr Kennedy's deployment as an undercover officer.
The head of the civil service has refused to allow the official inquiry into the Iraq War to publish notes sent by Tony Blair to former US president George Bush.
Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell denied requests for exchanges between the former prime minister and Mr Bush about Iraq to be declassified and released.
Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot said: "The inquiry is disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary was not willing to accede to its request.
"This means that in a narrow but important area the inquiry may not always be able to publish as fully as it would wish the evidential basis for some of its comments and conclusions."
Sir John wrote to Sir Gus last month asking him to authorise the declassification of extracts from notes sent by Mr Blair to Mr Bush and records of discussions between the two leaders.
He highlighted the fact that Mr Bush and Mr Blair - as well as the former prime minister's chief of staff Jonathan Powell and communications chief Alastair Campbell - had revealed details of some of their talks in their recent memoirs, and said the inquiry's protocol on releasing documents supported disclosure.
Sir John said in his letter: "The inquiry regards it essential in order to fulfil its terms of reference, to be able to chronicle the sequencing of discussions on Iraq between the UK prime minister and the president of the United States."
The inquiry chairman also revealed that the committee recently took evidence in a closed session from David Pepper, the former head of the UK's signals intelligence agency GCHQ.
A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: "All HMG (HM Government) documents have been made available to the inquiry. The issue is one of publication. Exchanges between the UK prime minister and the US president are particularly privileged channels of communication.
"The Cabinet Secretary is of the firm view that the public interest in publishing these letters is not outweighed by the harm to the UK's international relations that would likely be caused by his authorising their disclosure. This is in line with the published protocol. The majority of the inquiry's declassification requests have been met. But there are important public interest principles at stake. These are recognised in the protocol."
