Simon Levy has been charged with murdering 53-year-old Carmenza Valencia-Trujillo, from Colombia, who died on the Aylesbury Estate, south-east London, on 17 March, the Metropolitan Police said.

A police investigation was launched after a post-mortem examination was unable to determine a cause of death.

Levy, of Beaufoy Road, Tottenham, north London, was previously charged in September with murdering 39-year-old Sheryl Wilkins who was found unresponsive in High Road, Tottenham, on 24 August.

He is also accused of grievous bodily harm with intent, non-fatal strangulation and two counts of rape against a third woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in Haringey, north London, on 21 January, police said.

The 40-year-old will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday charged with Ms Valencia-Trujillo's murder.

He is also due to appear at the Old Bailey on Wednesday for a plea and trial preparation hearing for the murder of Ms Wilkins.

The Met Police said all three cases are now being treated as part of a single, joined investigation and a trial date has been set for June 2026 at the Old Bailey.

Read more from Sky News:
New 'national day' to be added to UK calendar
Manchester City's manager 'embarrassed' over behaviour

Detectives believe there may be individuals who have information relevant to this investigation - or who are yet to report incidents which have directly impacted them - and are asking for people to come forward.

Commander Clair Kelland, who leads the Met's public protection team, said: "Whether you are a victim-survivor, or someone with information, we urge you to come forward and speak to us."

Jaswant Narwal, of the Crown Prosecution Service, warned that proceedings against the defendant are active and that he had the right to a fair trial.

Mr Comey is the former FBI director and Ms James is New York attorney general.

In his ruling, Judge Cameron Currie said: "All actions flowing from Ms. [Lindsey] Halligan's defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr Comey's indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.

"The Attorney General's attempts to ratify Ms. Halligan's actions were ineffective and are hereby set aside."

Mr Comey has pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress and Ms James has pleaded not guilty to charges of bank fraud and lying to a financial institution.

The orders make Lindsey Halligan the latest Trump administration prosecutor to be disqualified because of the manner in which they were appointed.

Halligan, who previously served as Donald Trump's personal lawyer, was appointed interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September to oversee both investigations, despite lacking prior prosecutorial experience.

Judge Currie's ruling follows claims from Mr Comey and Ms James that the Trump Justice Department violated the Constitution's appointment clause and federal law by naming Halligan in September.

Mr Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint Halligan to the position after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, chose not to pursue charges against Mr Comey or Ms James, citing insufficient credible evidence in both cases.

Soon after taking the role, Halligan independently obtained indictments against Mr Comey and Ms James, after other career prosecutors in the office declined to be involved.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

David and Susan Jeffcock had sent a letter to their solicitor confirming they intended to end their lives before they were found on rocks at the base of East Cliff, in Whitby, on 30 July.

An inquest in Northallerton heard Mr Jeffcock, 80, and Mrs Jeffcock, 74, had moved to the north Yorkshire seaside town after they retired.

Mr Jeffcock's nephew, Kevin Shepherd, said his uncle had bone cancer and must have decided to kill himself because he was in pain, with Susan jumping after him.

In a statement read at the inquest, Mr Shepherd said: "I was shocked to hear of their passing, and in such circumstances.

"I can only conclude he was in so much pain he didn't want to keep deteriorating."

Mr Shepherd said that "although she was younger, Susan chose to join David", adding: "That to me shows their devotion."

He said Mr Jeffcock was "a lovely man who lived a good life", growing up in Sheffield and moving to Australia as a 10-pound Pom, before meeting and marrying "Susan - the love of his life" when he returned.

Mr Shepherd said the couple decided not to have children and "lived well together", travelling the globe on their holidays.

He said Mr Jeffcock worked as a taxi driver for several years and Mrs Jeffcock was a secretary at Stanley Tools.

The inquest heard the couple spent much of their life together in Sheffield, but dreamed of retiring to a coastal town and ultimately moved to Whitby, one of their favourite spots, in a flat above the harbour.

A statement from PC James Turner said that on 30 July a member of the public found a mobile phone and jacket at the top of a cliff, and looked over the edge to see two bodies on the rocks below.

Both were pronounced dead at the scene and their bodies were airlifted by the Coastguard helicopter.

Read more from Sky News:
Jimmy Cliff: Reggae singer and actor dies
New 'national' day to be added to UK's calendar

The cause of death was multiple traumatic injuries, the inquest heard.

The hearing was told that Mr Jeffcock had been to A&E three times so far that year, including for shortness of breath and acute onset headaches.

A police investigation found that Mr Jeffcock's health had worsened, and the couple had sent a letter to their solicitor saying they planned to end their lives.

A statement from Detective Inspector Jenkinson of North Yorkshire Police said it was possible Mr Jeffcock jumped first and Mrs Jeffcock "may have hesitated before following".

He said that a folded jacket had been weighed down with a brick and left at the top of the cliff "as some sort of marker", which "shows preparation prior to the jump".

Senior north Yorkshire coroner Jonathan Leach said the couple had no history of mental health issues, but that Mr Jeffcock suffered from some physical health problems.

He recorded a conclusion of suicide for both Mr and Mrs Jeffcock.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK.

Alternatively, you can call Mind's support line on 0300 102 1234, or NHS on 111.

It will be big in terms of tax rises, big in terms of setting the course of the economy and public services, and big in terms of political jeopardy for this government.

The chancellor has a lot of different groups to try to assuage and a lot is at stake.

"There are lots of different audiences to this budget," says one senior Labour figure. "The markets will be watching, the public on the cost of living, the party on child poverty and business will want to like the direction in which we are travelling - from what I've seen so far, it's a pretty good package."

The three core principles underpinning the chancellor's decisions will be to cut NHS waiting lists, cut national debt and cut the cost of living. There will be no return to austerity and no more increases in government borrowing.

Politics Live: Reeves's 'mansplaining' claims are just a 'smokescreen', says shadow chancellor

What flows from that is more investment in the NHS, already the big winner in the 2024 Budget, and tax rises to keep funding public services and help plug gaps in the government's finances.

Some of these gaps are beyond Rachel Reeves' control, such as the decision by the independent fiscal watchdog (the Office for Budget Responsibility) to downgrade the UK's productivity forecasts - leaving the chancellor with a £20bn gap in the public finances - or the effect of Donald Trump's tariffs on the global economy.

Others are self-inflicted, with the chancellor having to find about £7bn to plug her reversals on winter fuel allowance and welfare cuts.

By not pulling the borrowing lever, she hopes to send a message to the markets about stability, and that should help keep down inflation and borrowing costs low, which in turn helps with the cost of living, because inflation and interest rates feed into what we pay for food, for energy, rent and mortgage costs.

That's what the government is trying to do, but what about the reality when this budget hits?

This is going to be another big Labour budget, where people will be taxed more and the government will spend more.

Only a year ago the chancellor raised a whopping £40bn in taxes and said she wasn't coming back for more. Now she's looking to raise more than £30bn.

That the prime minister refused to recommit to his manifesto promise not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance on working people at the G20 in South Africa days ahead of the budget is instructive: this week we could see the government announce manifesto-breaking tax rises that will leave millions paying more.

Freeze to income thresholds expected

The biggest tax lever, raising income tax rates, was going to be pulled but has now been put back in neutral after the official forecasts came in slightly better than expected, and Downing Street thought again about being the first government in 50 years to raise the income tax rate.

On the one hand, this measure would have been a very clean and clear way of raising £20bn of tax. On the other, there was a view from some in government that the PM and his chancellor would never recover from such a clear breach of trust, with a fair few MPs comparing it to the tuition fees U-turn that torpedoed Nick Clegg's Lib Dems in the 2015 general election.

Instead, the biggest revenue raiser in the budget will be another two-year freeze on income tax thresholds until 2030.

This is the very thing that Reeves promised she would not do at the last budget in 2024 because "freezing the thresholds will hurt working people" and "take more money out of their payslips". This week, those words will come back to haunt the chancellor.

Two-child cap big headline grabber

There will also be more spending and the biggest headline grabber will be the decision to lift the two-child benefit cap.

This was something the PM refused to commit to in the Labour manifesto, because it was one of the things he said he couldn't afford to do if he wanted to keep taxes low for working people.

But on Wednesday, the government will announce it's spending £3bn-a-year to lift that cap. Labour MPs will like it, polling suggests the public will not.

What we are going to get on Wednesday is another big tax and spend Labour budget on top of the last.

For the Conservatives, it draws clear dividing lines to take Labour on. They will argue that this is the "same old Labour", taxing more to spend more, and more with no cuts to public spending.

Having retreated on welfare savings in the summer, to then add more to the welfare bill by lifting the two-child cap is a gift for Labour's opponents and they will hammer the party on the size of the benefits bill, where the cost of supporting people with long-term health conditions is set to rise from £65bn-a-year to a staggering £100bn by 2029-30.

Mansion tax on the cards

There is also a real risk of blow-up in this budget as the chancellor unveils a raft of revenue measures to find that £30bn.

There could be a mansion tax for those living in more expensive homes, a gambling tax, a tourism tax, a milkshake tax.

Ministers are fearful that one of these more modest revenue-raising measures becomes politically massive and blows up.

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne's on your podcast app👈

This is what happened to George Osborne in 2012 when he announced plans to put 20% of VAT on hot food sold in bakeries and supermarkets. The plan quickly became an attack on the working man's lunch from out-of-touch Tories and the "pasty tax" was ditched two months later.

And what about the voters? Big tax and spend budgets are the opposite of what Sir Keir Starmer promised the country when he was seeking election. His administration was not going to be another Labour tax and spend government but instead invest in infrastructure to turbocharge growth to help pay for better services and improve people's everyday lives.

Seventeen months in, the government doesn't seem to be doing things differently. A year ago, it embarked on the biggest tax-raising budget in a generation, and this week, it goes back on its word and lifts taxes for working people. It creates a big trust deficit.

Government attempts to tell a better story

There are those in Labour who will read this and point to worse-than-expected government finances, global headwinds and the productivity downgrades as reasons for tax raising.

But it is true too that economists had argued in the run-up to the election that Labour's position on not cutting spending or raising taxes was unsustainable when you looked at the public finances. Labour took a gamble by saying tax rises were not needed before the election and another one when the chancellor said last year she was not coming back for more.

After a year-and-a-half of governing, the country isn't feeling better off, the cost of living isn't easing, the economy isn't firing, the small boats haven't been stopped, and the junior doctors are again on strike.

Read more:
Reeves hints at more welfare cuts
Reeves vows to 'grip the cost of living'
What tax rises could chancellor announce?

The PM told me at the G7 summit in Canada in June that one of his regrets of his first year wasn't "we haven't always told our story as well as we should".

What you will hear this week is the government trying to better tell that story about what it has achieved to improve people's lives - be that school breakfast clubs or extending free childcare, increasing the national living wage, giving millions of public sector workers above-inflation pay rises.

You will also hear more about the NHS, as the waiting lists for people in need of non-urgent care within 18 weeks remain stubbornly high. It stood at 7.6m in July 2024 and was at 7.4m at the end of September. The government will talk on Wednesday about how it intends to drive those waits down.

But there is another story from the last 18 months too: Labour said the last budget was a "once in a parliament" tax-raising moment, now it's coming back for more. Labour said in the election it would protect working people and couldn't afford to lift the two child-benefit cap, and this week could see both those promises broken.

Can PM convince his MPs?

Labour flip-flopped on winter fuel allowance and on benefit cuts, and is now raising your taxes.

Downing Street has been in a constant state of flux as the PM keeps changing his top team, the deputy prime minister had to resign for underpaying her tax, while the UK's ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, was sacked over his ties to the Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted paedophile. It doesn't seem much like politics being done differently.

All of the above is why this budget is big. Because Wednesday is not just about the tax and spend measures, big as they may be. It is also about this government, this prime minister, this chancellor. Starmer said ahead of this budget that he was "optimistic" and "if we get this right, our country has a great future".

But he has some serious convincing to do. Many of his own MPs and those millions of people who voted Labour in, have lost confidence in their ability to deliver, which is why the drumbeat of leadership change now bangs. Going into Wednesday, it's difficult to imagine how this second tax-raising budget will lessen that noise around a leader and a Labour government that, at the moment, is fighting to survive.

The club's manager reacted angrily after being filmed in close proximity following his team's Premier League loss against Newcastle United at St James' Park on Saturday.

Guardiola was involved in animated discussions with home captain Bruno Guimaraes, and the match officials on the field, when the incident took place.

He had been unhappy at the decision to award Harvey Barnes' 70th-minute winning goal.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Guardiola said: "I feel embarrassed and ashamed when I see it. I don't like it. I apologised to the cameraman after one second."

He said that he had "made a huge mistake", but added: "I defend my team and my club, that's for sure".

Guardiola also played down what had appeared to be a heated exchange with Gumaraes.

"We have known Bruno for many, many years, and every time after the game, even at the Etihad, we talk in the tunnel or wherever, always," he said.

"I don't know what happened. Our paths always cross, and I always have a good relationship with him."

Read more from Sky News:
Business minister: "more urgency" needed to grow the economy
Paralympics protest Russia's reinstatement to competition

Guardiola, however, hinted he may have more to say about the officiating against Newcastle, but he wanted to get Tuesday's Champions League fixture with Bayer Leverkusen out of the way first.

"The referee was involved," he said. "For 95 minutes, 98 minutes, he was involved. My God, he was involved. On Friday, we talk."

City had complained that goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma had been fouled in the build-up to Barnes' decisive strike in the Newcastle's 2-1 win.

Saturday's defeat was their fourth in the Premier League this term, but they have made a strong start in the Champions League.

City sit fourth in the league phase table with 10 points heading into the fifth round of games.