and at the women's world cup, australia take on nigeria. a victory for the co—hosts would seal their place in the knockout stages. hello, welcome to bbc news now, three hours of fast—moving news, interviews and reaction. we start in ukraine, where the general in charge of the country's counter—offensive against russia, has told the bbc that his forces are struggling to overcome russian defences and move forward quickly. general oleksandr tarnavskyi said russia's multi—layered minefields and fortified defensive lines were making it difficult for military equipment, including western—supplied tanks and armoured vehicles, to advance. ukraine's counter—offensive is now in its second month. but progress has been slow. areas shown here in red

are those currently under russian military control. they include the cities of donetsk and mariupol. our defence correspondent, jonathan beale is in dnipro and hejoins us now. good to see you. you have been spending time with ukrainian forces. how do you find them? it’s spending time with ukrainian forces. how do you find them?— how do you find them? it's worth remembering _ how do you find them? it's worth remembering that _ how do you find them? it's worth remembering that this _ how do you find them? it's worth remembering that this offensive | how do you find them? it's worth i remembering that this offensive has been going on for nearly two months and the main focus of that offensive has been in the south were ukraine and ukrainian troops are trying to divide and split russian forces and break through their lines, trying to reach crimea. we spoke to the general in charge of that offensive in the south, general oleksandr tarnavskyi and he said that when they went to the front lines it was hard going. they were trying to break through well prepared russian

defences. hidden in a forest, evidence of ukraine's stuttering offensive in the south. a makeshift repair yard trying to salvage not old soviet equipment but recently donated western armor. these us made bradleys may have saved lives, but they've also been damaged by what's slowing them down. russian minefields. serhii says some can't be repaired, so they'll scavenge the parts. this was the same brigade in the first days of the offensive, especially trained and equipped by the west to break through defences. instead, they became an easy target and fodder for russian propaganda. now they're using old soviet tanks to try to clear a path. but overnight, maxim's t64 hit another mine, leaving it damaged and one of his men injured.

this got blown up? translation: there are too many mines. | the minefields can be six rows deep. it's very difficult and our rollers can't withstand more than four explosions. you need to save the equipment as well as do yourjob. it's ukraine's infantry who are having to make the hard yards on foot. all the more difficult to hold ground without armor. these had to pull back when a comrade was injured. it's been painful to watch for this drone pilot. he's seen brutal new tactics. this is what he recently filmed when ukrainian troops, advancing from the bottom right, tried to capture a russian trench. it was empty, but rigged with explosives. on russian trenches, they made the remote controlled mines. and when the soldiers get

the trenches, the mines exploding and kill our friends. it's a new weapon. ukraine's now using a new weapon, too, one that's banned by more than 100 countries. a this us—supplied howitzer is firing on russian infantry positions. and for the first time, we're seeing them using cluster munitions. cluster shells scatter scores of small bombs over a wide area, fired to try to dislodge russian infantry and artillery. the ukrainian general overseeing the southern offensive defended their use. he says he's facing a more difficult enemy. must translation: idon't- underestimate the enemy. they've created all the conditions that prevent us from moving forward quickly. but their weakness is they don't care about their people. how can i decide if your offensive

is a success or a failure? translation: i wouldn't be talking to you now - if the counter—offensive wasn't successful. he said he'd still to commit his main strike force. there are reports that may now be happening. the bodies of dead russian soldiers and destroyed tanks show ukraine is advancing. but on this battlefield, there's also wrecked western armour, including these british—supplied vehicles. ukraine says it needs patience and time. jonathan, the ukrainians say we need patience and time. given the weather is good right now, it's the middle of summer, one is the timeline and what are they looking at here? i don't think it's a set timeline and

remember most leaders in the west say they will support ukraine for as long as it takes but clearly, when it gets cold and it is winter, it's much more difficult to fight. they are hoping, the ukrainians, to make advances this summer and they have gained ground but not as they say, the commanders we have spoken to, both for the east and south now, with general alexander trotsky it is going as fast as they like. you are watching bbc news. we are expecting in the next few minutes to receive the sentencing of the 25—year—old man was found guilty of murdering police officer. we can now see thejudge murdering police officer. we can now see the judge delivering sentencing. he had devoted his life to public service. he put himself in the way of danger to protect the public and

to protect and safeguard those who came into custody. you have robbed sssooo of their future wife —— life together and of a father and jessica and james of their brother. they are all rightly immensely proud of the man you killed. they recognise that you bear the sole responsibility for his murder. they say in their victim impact statement that for the officers that were on duty that night they have nothing but support, sympathy and admiration and respect. lukeis sympathy and admiration and respect. luke is a police officer and he knows as well as anyone the dangers

they face day in, day out. and the difficult circumstances in which they operate. you said that you had an autistic meltdown and you said that you had diminished responsibility. thejury found that you had diminished responsibility. the jury found you guilty of murder. the sentence for murder is set by law. it is life imprisonment. so i sentence you to life imprisonment. i make a statutory surcharge order and the required sum and i have already made a deprivation order in respect to some specified items that were seized from you. i am satisfied that you will be held in conditions that would ensure your medical needs can be accommodated and that you can be treated in accordance with your rights. the operational manager of

the category a team and as magistrates present at belmarsh have confirmed that they have the resources and facilities to provide the care that is required. the secretary of state can, if necessary, make an order for your detention in hospital. i refused an application to adjourn sentence. i am satisfied that there has been ample time to obtain any information thatis ample time to obtain any information that is relevant to sentencing. i have a great deal of medical evidence about your condition and i have been given very great assistance from your lawyers. i have all the information that is necessary to pass sentence. the law requires the court to decide whether to set a minimum term order or a whole life order. a minimum term order means that you can be

considered for release after the minimum term, a whole life order means that you remain in custody for the rest of your life. i minimum term order must be set unless the court is required to make a whole life order. the court is required to make a whole life order if the seriousness of the offence means that a minimum term order should not be made. a sentence of imprisonment for life with a whole life order is a sentence of last resort. it is for cases of the most extreme gravity. it is reserved for cases where that is what is required to secure just punishment. in the event of any doubt as to whether that standard is reached, a minimum term order is

likely to be appropriate. if the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high, then it is a whole life order. the law identifies cases that are of exceptionally high seriousness and they include the murder of a police officer or a prison officer in the execution of his or her duty. in those cases, the starting point must normally be a whole life order. you murdered a police officer in the execution of his duty. so this case is within a category were parliament has set the starting point is normally a whole life order. depending on the facts of the case, the starting point can be changed from a whole life order to a minimum term order, but that

can only be done if it is justified and it will only be justified if the seriousness of the offence is not exceptionally high. after deciding the starting point, the court must consider any aggravating or mitigating factors. if starting point as a whole life order, and depending on those factors, the court could impose a whole life order on minimum term order. so the final sentence depends on the starting point and then the balance of those other factors. i turned to the events of the 25th of september 2020. the events are captured on cctv and body worn video evidence. i am sure of the following. 0ne, when you were stopped, you are in possession of a gun, the gun was a

revolver which had six chambers. each chamber contained a bulleted cartridge and also in possession of a pouch containing seven additional bulleted cartridges. each of those cartridges was suitable for firing from the gun. two, you knew you were in possession of the gun and cartridges when you were stopped by the police. you knew the gun worked, you knew the cartridges worked with the gun, you knew that each cartridge was likely to kill if fired directly at a person's chest. three, you had no lawful or good reason for the possession of the loaded gun or the cartridges. for, you deliberately concealed the gun from the police and you told them you had cannabis to focus their

attention on that. you did that in the hope that it would make it less likely that they would find the gun. when the police found the seven cartridges, you lied and said that they were not real. five, he made strenuous and successful efforts to retrieve the gun whilst you are handcuffed behind your back. there was no lawful or good reason for you to do that. six, you had time and space to consider what to do. it was 50 minutes between the time you were stopped and the time you shot sergeant matiu ratana. there were eight minutes after arrival at the police station before you were brought out of the van. you had already retrieved the gun at that point. during those eight minutes,

you are left entirely alone without any distraction. you are able to think about what you would do. seven, you posed a lethal risk, not just to sergeant ratana, but also the other offices in the holding room and any other officers and anyone else in the area. eight, you had quite been arrested before without incident. 0n had quite been arrested before without incident. on this occasion, the video evidence shows that you are treated with conspicuous compassion and kindness, or as luke ratana put it in as impact statement, we can expect dignity and understanding. none of the officers gave any reason to feel at risk of harm or threat. nine, you did not

have an autistic meltdown. your actions were voluntary, they were controlled. they were deliberate. you acted in cold blood. ten, you intended to kill sergeant ratana. you deliberately aimed the gun at his chest at a near point blank range. the first shot caused fatal injuries. it caused sergeant ratana to immediately fall to the ground. even as he fell, you re—aimed and you fired a second shot at him. parliament has said that the murder of police officer in the execution of police officer in the execution of his or her duty is normally an offence where the seriousness is exceptionally high. parliament has recognised that there may be cases

where that is not so. i have considered the impact of your autism on your culpability. in doing so, i have paid close attention to the sentencing council's guidelines. you are not having an autistic meltdown. you were in control of your actions. expert evidence during the trial indicated that autism does not cause people to be violent. autistic people to be violent. autistic people are no more likely to commit violent offences than anyone else. autism did have an impact on your social communication and your social interaction, but you are able to make yourself understood, that included when you requested an appropriate adult and a solicitor. any communication difficulty or

difficulty with social interaction had no bearing on your decision to kill sergeant ratana. autism may result in repetitive patterns behaviours or interests and it may behaviours or interests and it may be that this helps explain your interest in firearms, but it does not help explain your decision to kill sergeant ratana. autism also affects how you perceive things, for example, you are not tolerant of noise, but again, that does not explain your decision to kill sergeant ratana. i am satisfied that you are able to exercise appropriate judgment, you are able to make rational choices, you are able to understand the nature and consequences of your actions. there was no sufficient connection between

your autism and the murder to reduce your autism and the murder to reduce your culpability by reason of your autism. autism is not to blame for your decision to murder sergeant ratana, you are to blame for that. there is no reason to depart from the normal rule that the seriousness of this type of offence is to be regarded as exceptionally high. i therefore adopt the starting point of the whole life order that that is then subject to the other factors and the aggravating and mitigating balance. i turn first to the aggravating factors. sergeant ratana was performing a public service and exercising a public duty. that factor is inherent in the starting point of a whole life order. it is not, therefore, a separate aggravating factor. planning and

premeditation. your decision to kill sergeant ratana was not immediate or panicked, there was a degree of both planning and premeditation. prior to being stopped by the police, i accept that you had no plan to murder a police officer, but once you had been stopped and detained and the period thereafter, you did form a plan to kill him. the plan took shape in a number of ways. you lied to the officers, you said you did not have anything that could hurt them. you told them that the cartridges that they found were not real. you pointed them in the direction of the cannabis in your bag. you diverted their attention from your body with a gun was concealed. you went to considerable and probably painful links to retrieve the gun in a way that was

undetected. 0nce retrieve the gun in a way that was undetected. once you had hold of the gun, you kept it hidden under your coat. as you moved from the van to the holding cell, you sought to keep your back close to the wall to help conceal the gun. all of those things show a degree of planning and premeditation. albeit, iaccept there was all within the context of there was all within the context of the period between the stop and your arrival at the holding cell. it is a significant aggravating feature. use of a firearm. you acquire the gun and a venue manufactured the bulleted cartridges for it. you loaded each of the chambers of the gun and you took it with you, with other cartridges, as you took a journey in public. you took it into the police station. those actions

created a significant risk to members of the public and to all those in the police station, including other police officers who were also exercising public duties. after the lethal shot, he fired three further shots. they and particularly the third and fourth shot posed a high risk to the lives of two other police officers. your use of a firearm is a further significant aggravating feature. the use of the gun to commit the murder means in itself... figs use of the gun to commit the murder means in itself. . ._ means in itself... as you can see that feed — means in itself... as you can see that feed there _ means in itself... as you can see that feed there from _ means in itself... as you can see that feed there from our - means in itself... as you can see that feed there from our north . that feed there from our north hampton court has just froze and for a moment. thejudge sentencing and we are working through quite methodically as you have been

hearing exactly the considerations that the judge is hearing exactly the considerations that thejudge is putting into determining the precise sentence. remember, he has been found guilty of the murder of matiu ratana. this is about the punishment and the sentencing and the decisions being made that thejudge sentencing and the decisions being made that the judge is outlining which is between setting a minimum term order or a whole life order and he has already determined that the starting point in this case will be whole life order. as we work to re—establish that feed we will try to work out exactly what has gone on. if you are relatively new to watching these court proceedings here in the uk, to remind you of how it works. cameras traditionally have not been allowed in courts and is only relatively recently that we are going to a system whereby for sentencing, camera can focus on the judge and thejudge sentencing, camera can focus on the

judge and the judge only. we sentencing, camera can focus on the judge and thejudge only. we do not see any other parts of the courtroom and we are not in control of the cameras precisely in the way we would normally be with feeds coming into us from around the world. as we wait for that feed to return, i want to remind you about what happened in this case specifically. let's see some pictures now of matiu ratana. this is the police officer who was a 54 this is the police officer who was a 5k years old, and he was a hugely 5a years old, and he was a hugely popular man, sergeant, matiu ratana. he was born in new zealand and he joined the met police in 1991 and i'm now been told that we have re—establish that feed to the court unless listening to the judge again. it affects the impact of imprisonment on it. i have considered detailed academic research on the experience of autistic prisoners. that impact is

complex. in some respects, it is possible that you may have less difficulty enduring loss of liberty and a structured regime than others, but in many other respects, it is likely that you will find imprisonment more difficult, particularly in how you deal with staff and other prisoners and the effect of noise and other sensory stimuli on you. on balance, i accept that you are likely to find prison more difficult than a neuro typical prisoner. i take that into account. your injuries. after shooting sergeant back to, you then fired two more shots —— matiu ratana... . 0ne hit the one of the cell unmercifully hit the one of the cell unmercifully hit miss to the other two officers who were restraining you. you were hit in the neck and this resulted in bleeding and a blood clot with

travel to your brain and has caused some damage. it has also resulted in physical problems. it means you now use a wheelchair and you have real problems with your communication. you often use a whiteboard to help you communicate. it is entirely due to your deliberate and voluntary actions that you have those injuries, but i have regard to the impact of imprisonment on you in the light of the totality of your injuries. i am satisfied that adequate treatment can be provided in custody. even so, i recognise that custody is likely to be more difficult, but because of your injuries and because of your autism. that is a significant factor to consider when deciding whether to impose a whole life order. impact on yourfamily. i read the impose a whole life order. impact on your family. i read the statement of your family. i read the statement of your mother, and extracts of it were

read by... i recognised the impact that your sentence will have on your family. but that is not a significant mitigating factor. the aggravating factors in myjudgment outweigh the mitigating factors. the aggregating effect of your use of the gun and the planning and premeditation outweigh the mitigating effects of your personal mitigation, including the impact of custody. there is, therefore, no justification to depart from the starting point of a whole life order. that is what parliament has decided should normally apply the starting point of the murder of a police officer in the execution of their duty. the seriousness of the offence means that a minimum term order is notjustified. a whole life order is notjustified. a whole life order must be imposed. louis de

zoysa, i sentence you to imprisonment for life. i impose a whole life order and that means you will remain in custody for the rest of your life. you may now be taken from the dock. 50. of your life. you may now be taken from the dock.— from the dock. so, we did get the feed and the _ from the dock. so, we did get the feed and the connection _ from the dock. so, we did get the feed and the connection back - from the dock. so, we did get the i feed and the connection back inside that court in time to hear the final decision. a whole life order. so louis de zoysa will stay in prison for the rest of his life. these sentences are rare in the uk. most life sentences are a minimum term, but the most serious cases come with a potentialfor a but the most serious cases come with a potential for a whole life term where the prisoner will spend the rest of their life in prison. in this case, that is what the judge

has deemed must happen because the murder of a police officer in carrying out their duties usually determines a whole life sentence and in this case the judge could not find enough mitigating factors to outweigh the aggregating factors so that whole life term therefore is a decision of the judge. let's that whole life term therefore is a decision of thejudge. let's remind you of this case because it is one that we heard a lot about last month during the trial where he was found guilty of murder. let's remind you that matiu ratana, 5a years old, a police officer very well liked, very popular man who liked rugby. he was originally from new zealand and it came to london and joined the met police in 1991. he was in his mid—50s and he was actuallyjust months away from retirement. when he clocked into work as usual he was

murdered in 2020. that police station in croydon. the man who did it was louis de zoysa and we can see some pictures now of that night. this is louis de zoysa being arrested earlier in the evening. at this point he was carrying a gun, but the police arresting him did not know it and did not find it. a little later he was taken into custody sell there and that is the moment where he took out the gun and fired it twice at matiu ratana. this gun was over 100 years old and the ammunition was home—made and he had that first shot at matiu ratana which was the fatal one. and he also then fired again for shots in total in the third one hitting his own

neck and that has resulted in serious injuries