The 19-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had said she was attacked by 12 Israeli youths on July 17 at the Pambos Napa Rocks hotel in the resort of Ayia Napa, where she was staying.
But 10 days later she retracted her statement and police arrested her. She was found guilty of causing public mischief on Monday and now faces up to a year in jail.
"The UK is seriously concerned about the fair trial guarantees in this deeply distressing case and we will be raising the issue with the Cypriot authorities," the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office said in a statement.
The woman spent more than a month in prison before being granted bail. Her passport has been held to prevent her leaving the country.
The woman's lawyer, Michael Polak, earlier told CNN his client had been pressured into retracting her allegations, and that she was initially denied legal representation.
"She wasn't allowed a lawyer, which is against European law, she didn't have a translator, she was suffering from PTSD," he said.
In court, the woman insisted that she was raped but had been pressured into changing her account by Cypriot police, Reuters reported.
The woman told the court that she had had a consensual relationship with one of the youths, and was in a room with him when the others appeared, Reuters said. She alleged that she was held down and raped.
Judge Michalis Papathanasiou, however, accepted the prosecution's case that the woman fabricated the claims because she felt "ashamed" after finding out some of the Israelis had filmed her having sex on their mobile phones, Reuters reported.
None of the youths was called to give evidence. The judge refused to allow any evidence about whether the woman was raped, her lawyers said.
Following the UK's foreign office statement Tuesday a Cypriot government spokesperson said Cyprus was "an orderly state" with "constitutionally established institutions and separation of powers."
"The Government does not intervene in cases brought before the competent Courts of the Republic of Cyprus, nor does it comment on positions or allegations which are raised with respect to cases still pending before the Courts," the spokesperson said in a statement.
"The Government has full confidence in the Justice system and the Courts of the Republic of Cyprus, which should be left unfettered to implement state laws and deliver justice."
Nir Yaslovitzh, a lawyer representing the young Israelis, applauded the court's decision and said he sought an appropriate punishment on "the girl, who refuses to this day to take responsibility for the horrible act she has done against the boys."
He added that a civil process would take place to compensate his clients.
Rights activists say the case has been mishandled by Cypriot officials. On Monday, protesters from the Network Against Violence Against Women gathered outside the Famagusta District Court, many wearing white scarves portraying lips sewn together.
Sentencing has been adjourned until January 7.
Polak said the woman would be appealing the case to the Cyprus Supreme Court and, should this fail, to the European Court of Human Rights.
The UK and US considered a navy-backed oil embargo against Nigeria, following the 1995 execution of writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, a document released by the UK government reveals.
Saro-Wiwa and eight other campaigners from the Ogoni ethnic group were hanged on 10 November 1995.
They had been found guilty by a secret military tribunal of the murder of four Ogoni chiefs by a mob.
The nine denied the charge and said they had been framed.
Saro-Wiwa led mass protests against oil pollution in Nigeria's Ogoniland.
The protests were seen as a major threat to Nigeria's military ruler at the time, Gen Sani Abacha, and Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell.
The executions led to Nigeria suspension from the Commonwealth.
The UK's then Prime Minister, John Major, called it a "fraudulent trial" and described the executions as "judicial murder".
Notes of a meeting between Mr Major and US President Bill Clinton, nearly three weeks after the executions, show the steps the leaders contemplated to isolate Nigeria.
The two men met while Mr Clinton was on a visit to the UK.
According to the notes, the UK believed that an oil embargo would "only be effective" if done through the UN Security Council and "could only be made to work by a naval blockade".
Such steps would result in "wrecking Nigeria's economy" as it was heavily reliant on oil exports.
'Sycophants surround Abacha'
Mr Clinton agreed, but said the US would only implement an embargo if "all other parties" were willing to do so, pointing out that sanctions would be vetoed by China if brought before the UN Security Council.
There had been pleas from across the world for Nigeria's military leader at the time, Sani Abacha, to exercise clemency, but Western governments had struggled to reach the leader.
Mr Clinton's special envoy to Nigeria, Donald T McHenry, had been unable to see Abacha and concluded that he was "almost wholly insulated from the outside world" and "information was filtered by sycophants: they had no idea of genuine opinion within Nigeria or internationally".
Media playback is unsupported on your device
The hanging of the Ogoni campaigners took place just as Commonwealth heads of state were meeting in New Zealand for their biennial gathering.
The UK issued a statement condemning the executions, but it was South African President Nelson Mandela who led the international criticism.
He called for Nigeria to be suspended from the Commonwealth "at once" and that the suspension should not be lifted until the country had shown "much quicker" progress in returning from military to civilian rule. All political prisoners should be released, he argued.
In this, Mandela was backed by his Zimbabwean counterpart Robert Mugabe and Kenya's Daniel arap Moi, but the suggestion was criticised by a number of other African leaders, including Ghana's President Jerry Rawlings.
Mandela outspoken
The Commonwealth went ahead with the suspension, but Mandela was determined that the measures should not end there.
He continued his international engagement, making phone calls to Mr Clinton and keeping in touch with Mr Major by phone after the Commonwealth summit ended.
In demanding strong action Mandela appeared to have been isolated from the rest of his government.
Newspaper reports at the time indicate that then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Aziz Pahad, had been reluctant to pursue sanctions against Nigeria.
The UK, together with the European Union (EU), took a number of steps.
Ambassadors to Nigeria were recalled, military training and aid were suspended and an EU-wide arms embargo was instituted.
While Mr Major was willing to consider wider economic sanctions, he was unwilling to do so alone.
The UK accounted for just 1% of Nigeria's oil exports, while the US took 40%.
As a result, Mr Major told Mr Clinton, "we were not well placed to press for [sanctions]".
The UK also had a good deal to lose if Nigeria retaliated.
Pressure from Shell
There was a considerable British expatriate community in Nigeria and UK investments in the country totalled between $3.9bn and $6.5bn (£3bn and £5bn).
This included Shell, which extracted half of the country's oil and was contemplating building a major natural gas project.
The Shell chairman at the time, Cornelius Herkströter, wrote to Mr Major at the height of the controversy, pointing out just how important these investments were.
He argued that the gas liquefaction plant would "make a major contribution to environmental improvement in the region" since it would reduce the need for the flaring of gas.
In the end, the problem of getting UN Security Council approval for an oil embargo appeared to have blocked progress on wider sanctions.
Nigeria was only re-admitted to the Commonwealth in May 1999, on the day on which the country's new civilian government assumed power - ending three-and-a-half years of isolation.
The UK and US considered a navy-backed oil embargo against Nigeria, following the 1995 execution of writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, a document released by the UK government reveals.
Saro-Wiwa and eight other campaigners from the Ogoni ethnic group were hanged on 10 November 1995.
They had been found guilty by a secret military tribunal of the murder of four Ogoni chiefs by a mob.
The nine denied the charge and said they had been framed.
Saro-Wiwa led mass protests against oil pollution in Nigeria's Ogoniland.
The protests were seen as a major threat to Nigeria's military ruler at the time, Gen Sani Abacha, and Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell.
The executions led to Nigeria suspension from the Commonwealth.
The UK's then Prime Minister, John Major, called it a "fraudulent trial" and described the executions as "judicial murder".
Notes of a meeting between Mr Major and US President Bill Clinton, nearly three weeks after the executions, show the steps the leaders contemplated to isolate Nigeria.
The two men met while Mr Clinton was on a visit to the UK.
According to the notes, the UK believed that an oil embargo would "only be effective" if done through the UN Security Council and "could only be made to work by a naval blockade".
Such steps would result in "wrecking Nigeria's economy" as it was heavily reliant on oil exports.
'Sycophants surround Abacha'
Mr Clinton agreed, but said the US would only implement an embargo if "all other parties" were willing to do so, pointing out that sanctions would be vetoed by China if brought before the UN Security Council.
There had been pleas from across the world for Nigeria's military leader at the time, Sani Abacha, to exercise clemency, but Western governments had struggled to reach the leader.
Mr Clinton's special envoy to Nigeria, Donald T McHenry, had been unable to see Abacha and concluded that he was "almost wholly insulated from the outside world" and "information was filtered by sycophants: they had no idea of genuine opinion within Nigeria or internationally".
Media playback is unsupported on your device
The hanging of the Ogoni campaigners took place just as Commonwealth heads of state were meeting in New Zealand for their biennial gathering.
The UK issued a statement condemning the executions, but it was South African President Nelson Mandela who led the international criticism.
He called for Nigeria to be suspended from the Commonwealth "at once" and that the suspension should not be lifted until the country had shown "much quicker" progress in returning from military to civilian rule. All political prisoners should be released, he argued.
In this, Mandela was backed by his Zimbabwean counterpart Robert Mugabe and Kenya's Daniel arap Moi, but the suggestion was criticised by a number of other African leaders, including Ghana's President Jerry Rawlings.
Mandela outspoken
The Commonwealth went ahead with the suspension, but Mandela was determined that the measures should not end there.
He continued his international engagement, making phone calls to Mr Clinton and keeping in touch with Mr Major by phone after the Commonwealth summit ended.
In demanding strong action Mandela appeared to have been isolated from the rest of his government.
Newspaper reports at the time indicate that then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Aziz Pahad, had been reluctant to pursue sanctions against Nigeria.
The UK, together with the European Union (EU), took a number of steps.
Ambassadors to Nigeria were recalled, military training and aid were suspended and an EU-wide arms embargo was instituted.
While Mr Major was willing to consider wider economic sanctions, he was unwilling to do so alone.
The UK accounted for just 1% of Nigeria's oil exports, while the US took 40%.
As a result, Mr Major told Mr Clinton, "we were not well placed to press for [sanctions]".
The UK also had a good deal to lose if Nigeria retaliated.
Pressure from Shell
There was a considerable British expatriate community in Nigeria and UK investments in the country totalled between $3.9bn and $6.5bn (£3bn and £5bn).
This included Shell, which extracted half of the country's oil and was contemplating building a major natural gas project.
The Shell chairman at the time, Cornelius Herkströter, wrote to Mr Major at the height of the controversy, pointing out just how important these investments were.
He argued that the gas liquefaction plant would "make a major contribution to environmental improvement in the region" since it would reduce the need for the flaring of gas.
In the end, the problem of getting UN Security Council approval for an oil embargo appeared to have blocked progress on wider sanctions.
Nigeria was only re-admitted to the Commonwealth in May 1999, on the day on which the country's new civilian government assumed power - ending three-and-a-half years of isolation.
A 19-year-old British woman has been found guilty of lying about being gang-raped by Israeli youths in Ayia Napa, Cyprus.
She had been arrested after withdrawing an allegation that she was attacked by 12 young Israelis in a hotel in July.
The woman had said Cypriot police made her falsely confess to lying about the incident - but the police denied this.
She was found guilty on a charge of causing public mischief, at a court in Paralimni.
The judge at the Famagusta District Court adjourned sentencing until 7 January. She could face up to a year in jail and a £1,500 fine, but her lawyers have asked for a suspended sentence.
Lawyer Michael Polak, director of Justice Abroad which is assisting the woman, told BBC News that "there were a number of bases for appealing the decision".
He said those reasons included the court relying on a retraction statement which was given when no lawyer was present, which he said was a breach of European human rights law.
He also criticised the handling of the case by Judge Michalis Papathanasiou, who he said refused to hear any evidence about whether the alleged rape took place.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Prosecutors said the woman willingly wrote and signed a statement retracting her claims 10 days after making the initial allegations.
The woman told the court this happened under duress with the threat of arrest and that she had been denied access to a lawyer.
The trial began at the start of October - with the verdict delayed until now.
The judge said the teenager did not tell the truth and had tried to deceive the court.
He said the reason she initially gave a false statement was because she felt "embarrassed" after finding out some of the group had filmed her having sex on their mobile phones.
Her lawyers had argued that the video found on some of the Israelis' phones showed her having consensual sex with one of the group while others tried to enter the room as she told them to leave.
Twelve men were arrested in connection with the allegations but were later released and returned home.
The Briton spent more than a month in prison before she was granted bail at the end of August, but had not been allowed to leave the island.
Following the verdict, the woman was heard saying to her lawyers "I thought you were asking for a fine", after Ritsa Pekri asked the judge to impose a suspended sentence.
Another of the woman's lawyers, Nicoletta Charalambidou, told reporters outside court that they were planning to appeal against the decision to Cyprus' Supreme Court, and if that failed they would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
BBC Europe correspondent Kevin Connolly said the woman's family spent Christmas with her on the Mediterranean island.
Earlier this month, her mother told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme the past few months had been a "living nightmare".
She said her daughter, who was in Cyprus for a working holiday and had been due to start university after the summer, had post-traumatic stress disorder and the symptoms had become "much, much worse" since the alleged rape.
She also criticised what she saw as a lack of support from the authorities, saying that her daughter's human rights had been "violated the whole way through" the process.
A 19-year-old British woman has been found guilty of lying about being gang-raped by Israeli youths in Ayia Napa, Cyprus.
She had been arrested after withdrawing an allegation that she was attacked by 12 young Israelis in a hotel in July.
The woman had said Cypriot police made her falsely confess to lying about the incident - but the police denied this.
She was found guilty on a charge of causing public mischief, at a court in Paralimni.
The judge at the Famagusta District Court adjourned sentencing until 7 January. She could face up to a year in jail and a £1,500 fine, but her lawyers have asked for a suspended sentence.
Lawyer Michael Polak, director of Justice Abroad which is assisting the woman, told BBC News that "there were a number of bases for appealing the decision".
He said those reasons included the court relying on a retraction statement which was given when no lawyer was present, which he said was a breach of European human rights law.
He also criticised the handling of the case by Judge Michalis Papathanasiou, who he said refused to hear any evidence about whether the alleged rape took place.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Prosecutors said the woman willingly wrote and signed a statement retracting her claims 10 days after making the initial allegations.
The woman told the court this happened under duress with the threat of arrest and that she had been denied access to a lawyer.
The trial began at the start of October - with the verdict delayed until now.
The judge said the teenager did not tell the truth and had tried to deceive the court with "convenient" and "evasive" statements.
He said she told investigators she made up the claims because she felt "ashamed" after finding out some of the Israelis had filmed her having sex on their mobile phones.
Twelve Israelis were arrested in connection with the allegations but were later released and returned home.
The Briton spent more than a month in prison before she was granted bail at the end of August, but had not been allowed to leave the island.
Following the verdict, the woman was heard saying to her lawyers "I thought you were asking for a fine", after Ritsa Pekri asked the judge to impose a suspended sentence.
Another of the woman's lawyers, Nicoletta Charalambidou, told reporters outside court that they were planning to appeal against the decision to Cyprus' Supreme Court, and if that fails they would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
BBC Europe correspondent Kevin Connolly said the woman's family spent Christmas with her on the Mediterranean island.
Earlier this month, her mother told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme the past few months had been a "living nightmare".
She said her daughter, who was in Cyprus for a working holiday and had been due to start university after the summer, had post-traumatic stress disorder and the symptoms had become "much, much worse" since the alleged rape.
She also criticised what she saw as a lack of support from the authorities, saying that her daughter's human rights had been "violated the whole way through" the process.
A 19-year-old British woman has been found guilty of lying about being gang-raped in Ayia Napa, Cyprus, by Israeli youths.
She had been arrested after withdrawing an allegation that she was attacked by 12 young Israelis in a hotel in July.
The woman had said Cypriot police made her falsely confess to lying about the incident - but the police denied this.
She was found guilty on a charge of causing public mischief, at a court in Paralimni.
The judge at the Famagusta District Court adjourned sentencing until 7 January. She could face up to a year in jail, but her lawyers have asked for a suspended sentence.
The government has apologised "to all those affected" after it accidentally published addresses of more than 1,000 New Year Honour recipients online.
The file - which included details of senior police officers and politicians - was uploaded to an official website on Friday evening and removed Saturday.
The Cabinet Office told the BBC it was "looking into how this happened".
Among the addresses were those of Sir Elton John and former director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders.
Also on the list of 1,097 honours recipients were high-profile names such as cricketer Ben Stokes, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, TV cook Nadiya Hussain, and former Ofcom boss Sharon White.
The data breach was described as "farcical and inexcusable" by privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch.
The organisation's director, Silkie Carlo, said: "It's extremely worrying to see that the government doesn't have a basic grip on data protection, and that people receiving some of the highest honours have been put at risk because of this.
"It's a farcical and inexcusable mistake, especially given the new Data Protection Act passed by the government last year. It clearly can't stick by its rules."
A government spokesman said: "A version of the New Year Honours 2020 list was published in error which contained recipients' addresses.
"The information was removed as soon as possible.
"We have reported the matter to the ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] and are contacting all those affected directly."
The ICO, which has the power to fine organisations for data breaches, said it will be "making enquiries".
'Much depends on the attitude of those affected'
There is no doubt that this is a serious data breach and the government, of all organisations, should be better acquainted with the law on disclosing sensitive personal information.
But while some of the celebrities and the police officers awarded honours may be concerned about their privacy and security, it would have been far more serious if the home addresses of those on the list of gallantry awards had been leaked.
The Information Commissioner's Office has so far only levied one fine under the new Data Protection Act which came into effect in 2018 - a London pharmacy was fined £275,000 for careless storage of the very sensitive medical data of half a million people.
Lawyers who specialise in data protection think the ICO will see this as a less serious case of human error and may let the Cabinet Office escape with a warning about improving its practices.
But they say much now depends on the attitude of those who have seen their data leaked - they could decide to bring civil claims against the government for putting in the public domain information many of them have been determined to keep private.
Data rights lawyer Ravi Naik said the government could face legal action from those whose addresses were published, as well as from the ICO.
He also warned that anyone who came across the information should tell the ICO and not pass it onto others - because they themselves might face legal action.
'Sensitive names'
Simon Winch, a sustainability professional from London, was among those who were able to access the sensitive information.
He told the BBC: "I clicked on the link on the gov.uk website at around 11pm on Friday and the spreadsheet opened up.
"At first I thought everyone on the list had given their permission to publish their personal addresses. But then I saw that some quite sensitive names were on there."
Another source told the BBC they accessed the file just after midnight on Saturday but were unable to do so by 05:00 GMT.
The Cabinet Office said the document was visible for around an hour.
Most of the entries in the spreadsheet include full addresses - including house numbers and postcodes.
A separate list, that does not appear to be involved in the breach, covers gallantry awards for police, ambulance and fire staff and military personnel.
A list of more than 1,000 addresses of New Years Honours recipients, including those of senior police officers and politicians, has been accidentally published by the government.
The file was uploaded to the official website, but has since been removed.
The Cabinet Office told the BBC: "We apologise to all those affected and are looking into how this happened."
Among the addresses are those of Sir Elton John and former director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders.
Also on the list of 1,097 honours recipients are high-profile names like cricketer Ben Stokes, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, TV cook Nadiya Hussain, and former Ofcom boss Sharon White.
A government spokesman said: "A version of the New Year Honours 2020 list was published in error which contained recipients' addresses.
"The information was removed as soon as possible.
"We have reported the matter to the ICO [Information Commissioner's Office] and are contacting all those affected directly."
The ICO, which has the power to fine organisations for data breaches, said it will be "making enquiries".
'Much depends on the attitude of those affected'
There is no doubt that this is a serious data breach and the government, of all organisations, should be better acquainted with the law on disclosing sensitive personal information.
But while some of the celebrities and the police officers awarded honours may be concerned about their privacy and security, it would have been far more serious if the home addresses of those on the list of gallantry awards had been leaked.
The Information Commissioner's Office has so far only levied one fine under the new Data Protection Act which came into effect in 2018 - a London pharmacy was fined £275,000 for careless storage of the very sensitive medical data of half a million people.
Lawyers who specialise in data protection think the ICO will see this as a less serious case of human error and may let the Cabinet Office escape with a warning about improving its practices.
But they say much now depends on the attitude of those who have seen their data leaked - they could decide to bring civil claims against the government for putting in the public domain information many of them have been determined to keep private.
Simon Winch, a sustainability professional from London, was among those who were able to access the sensitive information.
He told the BBC: "I clicked on the link on the gov.uk website at around 11pm on Friday and the spreadsheet opened up.
"At first I thought everyone on the list had given their permission to publish their personal addresses. But then I saw that some quite sensitive names were on there."
Another source told the BBC they accessed the file just after midnight on Saturday but were unable to do so by 05:00 GMT.
The Cabinet Office said the document was visible for around an hour.
Most of the entries in the spreadsheet include full addresses - including house numbers and postcodes.
A separate list, that does not appear to be involved in the breach, covers gallantry awards for police, ambulance and fire staff and military personnel.
The UK has been accused of committing "crimes against humanity" for refusing to allow people to return to their former homes on the Chagos Islands, despite a ruling earlier this year by the United Nation's highest court.
Describing Britain's behaviour as stubborn and shameful, the prime minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth, told the BBC that he was exploring the possibility of bringing charges of crimes against humanity against individual British officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
"It is a violation of the basic principle of human rights. I fail to understand why Britain, this government, is being so stubborn," said Mr Jugnauth.
Elderly Chagossians, living in Mauritius, have echoed that criticism and accused Britain of deliberately dragging its heels on the issue in the hope that the community will simply die out.
Earlier this year, Mauritius won a major victory against Britain when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled - in an advisory opinion - that the Chagos Islands should be handed over to Mauritius in order to complete its "decolonisation."
The United Nations General Assembly then voted to give Britain a six-month deadline to begin that process. Britain has steadfastly refused to comply.
It is half a century since Britain took control of the Chagos Islands from its then colony, Mauritius, and evicted the entire population of more than 1,000 people in order to make way for an American military base - part of a secret deal negotiated behind Mauritius's back as it was seeking to secure independence from the UK.
"Britain has been professing, for years, respect for the rule of law, respect for international law… but it is a pity the UK does not act fairly and reasonably and in accordance with international law on the issue of the Chagos archipelago," said Mr Jugnauth.
Philippe Sands, a lawyer representing the Mauritian government, said: "Britain is on the edge of finding itself as a pariah state.
"We now have a situation where Chagossians - a deported population, want to go back and have a right to go back. And the UK is preventing them from going back.
"Question - is that a crime against humanity? My response is that, arguably, it is."
Britain continues to insist that the ICJ ruling is wrong. But it has apologised for its past treatment of the Chagossians and promised to hand the islands over to Mauritius when they are no longer needed for security purposes.
In a statement, Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) told the BBC: "The defence facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory help protect people in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats and piracy.
"We stand by our commitment to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it's no longer required for defence purposes."
The FCO said Britain had pledged more than £40m to improve the livelihoods of Chagossians living in Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK.
The UK has also begun to take small groups of Chagossians back to the archipelago for brief "heritage" visits.
But in Mauritius, those tours have been condemned as a crude attempt to "divide and rule" the Chagos community.
"I boycott those trips. The British are trying to buy our silence. That's why we say our dignity is not for sale," said Olivier Bancoult, who heads the Chagos Refugees Group.
In a graveyard in the Mauritian capital, Port Louis, the graves of several Chagossians are marked with headstones mourning their failure to return to the islands.
"I fear my wish will not come true before I die - to see my motherland again," reads the script beside the grave of Mr Bancoult's mother, Marie Rita Elysee Bancoult.
"Every day, one by one, we're dying. I believe the British are waiting for us to die so there will be no one to claim the islands," said Liseby Elyse, 66, who was 20 when she left the archipelago.
"We're like birds flying over the ocean, and we have nowhere to land. We must keep flying until we die," said 81-year-old Samynaden Rosemond.
British competition regulators launched an in-depth probe Friday into Amazon’s investment in the food delivery firm Deliveroo, raising questions about the deal’s future.
Amazon’s purchase of a minority stake in London-based Deliveroo warrants a deeper investigation because the companies did not outline any steps to make sure the deal won’t harm competition, the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority said.
“Amazon has failed to address our initial concerns that their investment in Deliveroo could be bad for customers, restaurants and grocers,” the authority said on Twitter.
The watchdog could block the deal or attach conditions to it if the “Phase 2” probe finds it will reduce competition.
Amazon led a $575 million fundraising round for Deliveroo that was announced in May. The deal aimed to give the American tech giant a stake in a major European competitor to food delivery companies such as Uber Eats.
The Competition and Markets Authority first raised concerns about the deal earlier this month, saying it would limit competition in a UK restaurant delivery market already dominated by just three companies including Deliveroo.
The deal would also combine two of the biggest players in the UK’s grocery delivery sector, regulators have said.
The authority referred the deal for a deeper probe after Amazon and Deliveroo failed to submit plans to address the concerns.
A Deliveroo spokesperson said the company is confident it will convince the watchdog that Amazon’s investment “will add to competition, helping restaurants to grow their businesses, creating more work for riders, and increasing choice for customers.”
“Amazon believes that this investment funding will lead to more pro-consumer innovation by helping Deliveroo continue to build its world-class service and remain competitive in the restaurant food delivery space,” an Amazon spokesperson said in a statement.
The retiring president of the Supreme Court says legal aid cuts in England and Wales have caused "serious difficulty" to the justice system.
Baroness Hale, who was guest editing BBC Radio 4's Today, said it was a particular problem in family courts.
In 2013, legal aid was removed from many civil law cases to achieve a saving of £350 million a year.
The government said it was piloting early legal advice in some welfare cases, plus extra financial support.
Baroness Hale of Richmond, who retires next month, is the first female president of the Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal in the UK.
She said: "I don't think that anybody who has anything to do with the justice system of England and Wales could fail to be concerned about the problems which the reduction in resources in several directions has caused for the system as a whole."
The outgoing president said the problem was particularly evident in family courts.
Lady Hale said: "It's unreasonable to expect a husband and wife or mother and father who are in crisis in their personal relationship to make their own arrangements without help."
She said in such family dispute cases "there may be an imbalance in resources because of the lack of access".
Most people require legal help at the beginning of cases, she said.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Additional resources would allow many disputes to be resolved at an early stage, without the need to go to court or stretch their finances, she added.
"It is that lack of initial advice and help which is a serious difficulty."
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "We are improving early legal support to reduce the number of people going to court unnecessarily and prevent undue stress and costs.
"We are piloting early legal advice in certain welfare cases, have committed £5 million for a Legal Support Innovation Fund to identify and resolve legal problems, and will soon launch an awareness campaign to improve understanding of entitlements.
"This is on top of £1.7 billion we spent on legal aid last year and ongoing work to improve the Exceptional Case Funding scheme and legal aid means testing."
Legal aid is the money provided by the government to cover legal costs for those who cannot afford them.
Cuts to legal aid came into effect on 1 April, 2013 as part of the government's plan to save £350 million a year.
The changes meant that some types of cases, such as divorce, welfare benefits, child contact, housing law and employment were no longer eligible for public funds.
Such cuts have proved controversial, with the Criminal Bar Association, which represents criminal lawyers in England and Wales, advising its members last year to strike.
Angela Rafferty QC, chair of the CBA, said that underfunding meant the poor and vulnerable were "being denied access to justice".
It's been a good year for migrant butterflies, moths and dragonflies in the UK, according to a review of 2019 by the National Trust.
The charity says warm and wet weather saw the biggest influx of painted lady butterflies in a decade.
But the impacts of drought and wildfires in some parts mean it's not been a good year for natterjack toads and water voles.
The fires saw the habitats of mountain hares impacted as well.
The changeable nature of the weather in 2019 meant there were mixed outcomes for species around the country. The warm spells in the earlier part of the year saw lots of moths, butterflies and dragonflies from Europe arrive en masse.
Chief among them was the painted lady butterfly. This orange and black spotted species is commonly seen in the UK but the last mass arrival was in 2008. Some 420,000 of the creatures were recorded in this year's big butterfly count. This butterfly has quite the range, capable of travelling 7,500 miles from tropical Africa to the Arctic Circle.
Another exotic visitor was the long tailed blue butterfly with 50 seen across the south coast of England. It was the third time in six years that the numbers of this delicate creature appeared to be increasing but successive generations haven't yet made it through a British winter.
There were also large numbers of migrant dragonflies, while a rare moth, the Clifden nonpareil was recorded in Devon. It became extinct in the UK in the 1960s but has been trying to re-establish itself over the past few years.
"Sightings of migrant insects and birds are becoming more common. This is a result of our changing climate," said Ben McCarthy, head of nature conservation and restoration ecology at the National Trust.
"Although this can seem exciting, the obvious flipside is how these changes will start to affect some of our native species already under pressure from intensive land use, habitat fragmentation and climate change."
Grey seals around the UK appeared to be doing well despite the 50% mortality rate of seal pups at National Trust locations.
But some native UK species were under pressure due to the impact of drought and wildfire.
Fires on Marsden Moor at Easter destroyed around 700 hectares of habitats, including those of mountain hares, curlews and twites.
It was also a bad year for natterjack toads, who rely on pools of water in their dune habitats to survive. Many of these dried out in May and June resulting in spawn and tadpoles being lost.
Rangers also recorded the earliest and latest spawning dates of the last decade, perhaps indicating that natterjacks are trying to adapt to a changing climate.
Water voles in the Yorkshire Dales also suffered due to the heavy and unexpected rainfall in June, July and September. Sudden flood events swept away many of their offspring who were too young to be able to swim.
There were many other species suffering or benefitting from the changeable conditions throughout the year.
Twenty-nineteen was a boom year for grass growth, which sounds like a good thing. But it could have negative impacts because more grasses can outcompete native wildflowers, which is bad news for pollinators.
Managing the environment with a variable weather picture is a challenge - and could see species become extinct.
"This brings home the importance of doing all we can to ensure that we protect our remaining habitats and ensure they are in good condition to support our threatened species," said Mr McCarthy.
"By improving the condition of our remaining habitats and increasing patch size it is easier for species to move across landscapes in response to our changing environments. It also means that when they arrive in their new location there is habitat to support them.
"If our wildlife doesn't have anywhere to move to as temperatures rise and the weather changes, over the coming years we will inevitably see more and more species at risk of becoming extinct."
A leading EU official has penned a love letter to Britain, expressing his "deep hurt" over Brexit and concluding: "You will always be welcome to come back."
"Since I went to a British school, you have always been part of me. Now you are leaving, and it breaks my heart," the top of the Guardian piece reads.
The UK is due to leave the European Union on 31 January 2020.
MPs passed Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit deal on 20 December, just eight days after his Conservative Party won a majority in the general election.
This will trigger a transition period of negotiations, which Mr Johnson's EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill ensures will not go beyond 2020.
What did Mr Timmermans say?
The executive vice-president of the European Commission starts by saying he "recently read a delightful book of love letters to Europe. And it made me contemplate my love for Britain".
The Dutch national recalls his time at St George's British International School in Rome and says that, during his life, "Britain was always there. As part of me."
He adds: "I know you now. And I love you. For who you are and what you gave me. I'm like an old lover."
He says Britain thinks it is "unique and different" but that this is "perhaps less than you think".
Mr Timmermans accepts there are differences between all member countries which can both be a positive and negative force, and that things can "quickly get out of hand".
He says the UK is still in two minds about the EU, and "I see it is hurting you".
He writes: "Truth be told, I felt deeply hurt when you decided to leave. Three years later I am just sad that a member of our family wants to sever our ties.
"But at the same time I find comfort in the thought that family ties can never really be severed. We're not going away and you will always be welcome to come back."
A number of social media posts were positive about the letter.
Former Green Party leader Natalie Bennett, a new House of Lords peer, tweeted the letter was "Something to remember. And thank you."
Labour peer and ex-Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis tweeted simply about the UK's return: "Just a matter of time".
Brexiteers were less impressed. Former UKIP general secretary Paul Oakley wrote: "Yuck. Just like a clingy ex, Frans Timmermans has written a soppy letter to Britain longing for our return to the EU."
What happens after Brexit?
Assuming the European Parliament also gives the green light, the UK will formally leave the EU on 31 January with a withdrawal deal - and it will then go into a transition period that is scheduled to end on 31 December 2020.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
During this period, the UK will effectively remain in the EU's customs union and single market - but will be outside the political institutions and there will be no British members of the European Parliament.
The first priority will be to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, and time is short. The EU could take weeks to agree a formal negotiating mandate, and that means formal talks might only begin in March.
It's not just a trade deal that needs to be sorted out. The UK must agree how it is going to co-operate with the EU on security and law enforcement.
British troops have helped to move a group of critically endangered black rhinos from South Africa to Malawi to protect them against poaching.
Soldiers from the 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles moved 17 of the animals, which are hunted for their horns, in the hope they can be better protected.
They were transported by air and road from KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa to Liwonde National Park in Malawi.
The troops then spent three months training rangers to keep them safe.
Major Jez England, the officer commanding the British Army counter-poaching team in Liwonde, said the operation had been "hugely successful".
"Not only do we share skills with the rangers, improving their efficiency and ability to patrol larger areas, but it also provides a unique opportunity for our soldiers to train in a challenging environment", he said.
The UK government says it has committed more than £36m to tackle the illegal wildlife trade between 2014 and 2021.
Part of this is to help support trans-boundary work to allow animals to move more safely between areas and across national borders.
Taken together, the headlines paint a picture of a monarchy in crisis. So, how will this hallowed institution bounce back again in 2020? The answer is simple: As it always has done, with Elizabeth II firmly at its helm.
The first shock of the year came in January when the Duke of Edinburgh was involved in a car crash near Sandringham, the family's estate in Norfolk, eastern England. Prince Philip was unhurt when his Land Rover flipped onto its side, though a woman in the other car was injured.
But when the elderly duke -- who is rarely seen these days following his retirement in 2017 -- was spotted back behind the wheel the following day, there was a media furor. The situation was compounded when it emerged that the victim had not been immediately contacted by the duke in the days after the crash and was swiftly followed by an announcement that the then-97-year-old would give up his driving license.
"The Queen has been without her 'strength and stay' as [the duke] is based at Wood Farm on the Sandringham Estate, even though they reportedly speak every day by telephone," explained royal commentator Richard Fitzpatrick.
Fitzpatrick added that the absence of the long-time patriarch -- who previously assumed the roles of "modernizer" and "pragmatist" -- had been keenly felt this year.
In his absence, Prince Charles and his son William -- also known by their official titles of the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge -- began accompanying the Queen to engagements. It's all part of the inevitable transition but abdication is dismissed out of hand by aides who point to the monarch's repeated commitments to "life-long service." Even the idea of a regency -- where she retains the Crown but hands over all official responsibilities to Charles -- seems to be off the agenda.
Philip wasn't the only senior royal to have run-ins with the media this year. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex also took time out in November and December, after months of clashes with the press.
A CNN investigation in March revealed the palace had beefed up their social media operation amid a rise in racist online abuse targeting Meghan. They have been devoting more resources to deleting comments targeting the duchess, blocking abusive accounts and filtering out use of the n-word and gun and knife emojis.
In June, a far-right teenager who reportedly branded Prince Harry a "race traitor" and suggested he should be shot after his marriage to Meghan, was jailed for more than four years.
Meanwhile, the couple's battle with the newspapers escalated. When the palace revealed millions of pounds of public money had been used to renovate Frogmore Cottage, the Sussex family home near Windsor Castle, the British papers complained they weren't getting fair access to the family, particularly after baby Archie's christening was closed to the media.
The couple was also accused of hypocrisy for using private jets to fly off on holiday, while also campaigning on environmental issues.
The Sussexes went on the offensive over what Harry described as a tabloid campaign against Meghan that he said mirrored the treatment meted out to his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. The duchess sued the Mail on Sunday, alleging that it had illegally published a private letter to her father. The duke launched his own legal proceedings against the Daily Mirror and the Sun, over alleged phone-hacking. All publications deny the couple's claims and have vowed to fight them vigorously.
In a documentary for British channel and CNN affiliate ITV news that followed the couple on their southern African tour, the Sussexes revealed that they had found life over the past year or so difficult.
"I never thought that this would be easy, but I thought that it would be fair," the duchess said of her treatment by the media. "I've really tried to adopt this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip," she said. "I tried, but I think what that does internally is probably really damaging."
Asked how she was feeling, Meghan responded, "Thank you for asking because not many people have asked if I'm okay, but it's a very real thing to be going through behind the scenes."
That comment was seen by some columnists as a slight against other family members. And was compounded by Prince Harry's acknowledgment of tensions with his older brother Prince William saying they are on "different paths."
After the program aired, a source at Kensington Palace told the BBC that the Duke of Cambridge was "worried" about his brother. That was followed up by a source close to the Sussexes telling CNN the couple are "single-handedly modernising the monarchy" despite officials around them being "afraid" to harness their power.
The flood of leaks and counter-leaks fueled the tabloid narrative of a rift in the family.
After the Sussexes vanished from public life in November, media attention shifted to Prince Andrew, the Queen's second son who agreed to an extended interview with the BBC in an effort to clear up speculation about his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
It had the opposite effect.
Epstein had allegedly trafficked Virginia Giuffre -- previously known as Virginia Roberts -- when she was 17 years old, forcing her to have sex with his friends, including the Duke of York.
In the interview, the duke denied having any sexual contact with Giuffre, insisting he had "no recollection of ever meeting this lady."
But Prince Andrew also said he didn't regret his relationship with Epstein, who died by apparent suicide in August, and failed to express any sympathy for the disgraced banker's victims.
The fallout from widely-criticized interview dominated the tabloids, with reporters digging out inconsistencies in the duke's story. It descended in to farce as pictures of Prince Andrew sweating were pulled out to undermine his claim that he didn't sweat at the time of the alleged offenses due to a medical condition.
Days later, Andrew was left with no choice but to release a follow-up statement, in which he said: "I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure." To halt the backlash, the duke added he was stepping back from public duties.
CNN understands that decision followed a meeting with the Queen after she sought the opinions of Prince Charles and others. Multiple sources have made it clear to CNN that the Queen led on the issue of how to handle Andrew, not Prince Charles as some local outlets reported. The sources also disputed a recent narrative that has emerged in some UK tabloids that the 93-year-old sovereign is stepping aside for Charles as fictional.
CNN also understands that Andrew's departure from public life may not be permanent -- though any timeline on his return will likely be defined by the American judicial system and whether Andrew is called in for questioning.
While announcing he was stepping back from his royal role, Andrew also said he was "willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required." So far, no formal requests have been made by US authorities and no criminal charges have been brought against the Duke of York.
Amid all her domestic woes, the Queen was also tested professionally when Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked her to shut down Parliament for five weeks at the height of the Brexit debacle. She rubber-stamped the request in line with her duty to stay out of politics and to act only on the advice of ministers.
But when the Supreme Court found the prorogation was illegal, it raised the uncomfortable question of whether the Queen had broken the law. The ruling led to accusations Johnson's government deliberately misled the monarch as part of its strategy to secure Brexit -- but regardless, any political maneuver involving the Queen is the ultimate faux pas.
Johnson was forced to personally apologize for embarrassing the monarch, according to the Sunday Times. The paper's royal sources revealed that "there was huge disquiet in the Queen's household about Johnson's decision to prorogue parliament."
While Johnson's strategy was questionable, others displayed the customary deference and respect to the British sovereign in 2019. We certainly saw it from US President Trump during his state visit earlier in June.
Throughout the visit, the American commander in chief appeared enthralled and engaged alongside the head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith.
Speaking to Fox News right after the trip to London, Trump called the Queen an "incredible lady."
He added: "I feel I know her so well and she certainly knows me very well right now, but we have a very good relationship also with the United Kingdom."
In 1992, the Queen endured what she called her "Annus Horribilis," a year that saw three of her children endure marital strife and Windsor Castle almost burned down. Characteristically, she bounced back and steered the royal family back into the nation's hearts.
Now, almost three decades on, the monarch has seen yet another ghastly 12 months in which her ability to unify is more essential than ever.
In her annual Christmas address, the Queen was already moving the message onto one of reconciliation. She admitted that 2019 had been a demanding year and that the path was not always smooth and "but small steps can make a world of difference."
The message from everyone around her is that she has no intention of compromising that role -- and that can only be coming from the top.
CNN's Lauren Said-Moorhouse contributed to this report.
There is nothing quite like holding wild birds. Their beauty, colours and behaviour never fail to astonish: The blue tit, so common in the UK, turns out to be the most aggressive, pecky little bird imaginable; the goldcrest - the weight of a 20p coin (or a nickel for transatlantic readers) - so tiny; the sparrowhawk, quite a rarity to trap, with its murderous look and talons.
The chance of getting this close to wildlife was one of the factors that attracted me to the surprising and challenging world of bird ringing.
Long before dawn this winter morning, small groups of people all around Britain will wake up to spend several hours in the cold, in marshes, on beaches and sea cliffs. Their goal? To trap birds of as many species as possible in high nets, to measure them, age them, place a lightweight ring with a unique serial number on their right leg and release them, as part of a huge citizen science project which has lasted more than a century now.
Joining this project as a trainee, which I did a little more than a year ago, was a startling and rather humbling experience. It remains so. I've been a birder (not a twitcher, please) for many years, and thought I knew a fair bit about birds, at least in the British context. I could identify many dozens of different species by sight and by their song, even if there are always plenty of people in the bird hides who know more than me.
Actually I knew very little. The migration of birds to and from northern Europe from Africa, yes. The details of that migration, when, how they prepare for these extraordinary journeys, their numbers, how high they fly, no.
What was also a surprise to me was that hundreds of thousands of birds actually migrate to Britain in the winter - not just the geese that descend on Norfolk and other wetlands in such large numbers from even colder places such as Scandinavia, Iceland and Russia, but more everyday birds like robins and blackbirds.
We regard them as British birds, but actually their numbers swell considerably in the winter as their continental cousins come in from elsewhere in northern Europe. The reason why robins sing so much in the winter is because they're defending their territory from "outsiders".
The ringing scheme is intended to establish how these and other migration patterns are working, which birds are on the decline and on the rise. Retrapped birds provide important clues to the health of bird populations.
The serial number on their rings is matched to the last time the bird was caught, yielding information about how their weight, wing size, fat and muscle depth has changed.
More than a million birds caught every year
The age and sex of the bird in many cases can be gauged by their plumage (debates on tell-tale but minute graduations in colour take up a fair part of our mornings). So the data gathered by 3,000 volunteer ringers, from more than a million birds trapped in the UK and Ireland every year, plays a key role in conservation efforts.
For example, as a result of research done using ringing data, agri-environmental schemes were developed to provide winter seed for farmland birds, which are believed to have contributed to the partial population recovery of reed buntings, a bird that we often trap at our site in Surrey.
When I say it's an early start, I don't exaggerate. In winter our ringing group arrives at the bird reserve two hours before sunrise, to put up the 10ft (3m) high mist nets. Some reserves have fixed nets that can be unfurled very easily. Ours are erected afresh each time (head torches indispensable here) because we move them depending on the season - no point putting a lot of nets up in the reed beds when the reed warblers are away until late April in sub-Saharan Africa.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Outside the breeding season we play sound recordings of the birds that we're particularly keen to trap - if there's a sighting of bramblings, then that goes on the player. And it makes a difference. The numbers of redwings we trapped went up considerably when we started playing a tape made in Latvia, one of the countries they migrate from during the winter.
It would be wrong, however, to explain the motivation of bird ringing as purely a dispassionate collection of data. As my trainer David Ross explains, it's also a matter of curiosity. He says one of the main motivations is watching the migration unfold, from his vantage point at the bird reserve, 25 miles south-west of London.
"Migration fascinates me, especially during the summer when we're ringing reed warblers from Africa. They come back and get caught in almost exactly the same spot they've been trapped in previous years, which is about half the size of a tennis court. I find it incredible they can go to tropical Africa in winter, and find their way back here in the springtime."
The training is rigorous, under the close supervision of an experienced ringer, and lasts around two years. Mistakes are easy to make - how many birds have I released too early through not holding them firmly enough; or mis-identified, or got their age and sex wrong, or cack-handedly put the ring on wrong. Bird extraction from the mist nets is a skill I have found very hard to learn.
The group that I train with varies in size week by week, from three up to as many as seven. My fellow trainees are mostly ecologists or already have a professional link with conservation. We operate under the gimlet eye of trainer David Ross, a former London cab driver with an almost preternatural ability to see how a badly tangled bird can be extracted from the net.
Personal and professional motivation
My fellow trainees' enthusiasm and knowledge of the countryside is inspiring.
Paul Perrins, who works as an ecologist with a development company, has a dual motive for the early mornings. A ringing licence will be a boost for his professional skillset, like his qualification in the trapping and handling of dormice for wildlife surveys. But it's also about conservation:
"While work does offer it to an extent, it's more indirect. But to be able to come out here and know that I'm contributing to a long-term, growing dataset is very rewarding."
Kathryn Dunnett, who works in conservation, agrees that a ringing licence will be helpful in her career, but says there's a more personal reason, the "excitement and thrill when you go to the nets and see what we might have trapped".
But she admits to some reservations: "Is it for me or for the birds? When you catch 100 blue tits, I ask myself, do we really need this data - what are we really learning?"
The answer to that, according to the BTO, is that the vast data sets collected on common birds such as the blue tit can be used to understand what's happening to scarcer species.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
The youngest of the trainees is Alex Bayley, who hopes to have a career in wildlife and conservation. "There is a great privilege in being able to view at such close range and hold wild birds," says the 17-year-old.
"Also, at times like these when global warming and human interference on the natural world is so great, ringing provides data and evidence to support conservation initiatives that have the potential to hugely benefit birds under threat."
