piran ditta khan spent nearly two decades evading justice — he was extradited from pakistan last year, the last of the seven men involved to face trial. our correspondent, danny savage, reports. this was a shocking crime back in 2005 and it feels like a shocking crime now. a west yorkshire police officer, unarmed, responding to a call of an alarm being activated at a travel agents in a city centre in bradford, west yorkshire, in november 2005. she and her colleague pull up in their police car opposite that business on a busy friday afternoon, they walk across the street towards the front door of the travel agents, just as they arrive, three gunmen burst out of that building, having carried out a robbery, and a gun is fired. pc sharon beshenivsky is shot dead with fatal injuries, her colleague pc teresa milburn is shot as well, injuries which she does recover from. then launched a huge manhunt to track down those responsible. this was a huge story at the time here in the uk. over the subsequent months and years that followed that raid, they slowly but surely tracked down and caught those involved. seven people in total, six of them caught relatively quickly, even though two of them had fled to somalia, and they were brought tojustice, but the ringleader, the man who planned the raid, piran ditta khan, took years to catch. he fled to pakistan in the weeks and months that followed that shooting and went to ground. it was with the cooperation of the authorities in pakistan that the uk police finally tracked him down, got him arrested in pakistan and got him brought back to the uk last year. and over the last seven weeks here in leeds crown court, he has been on trial. in the last hour, he has been found guilty of the murder, even though he was not in the business at the time, he was driving around in a lookout car, but, because of his involvement, because of his planning, he isjust as responsible for the murder of pc sharon beshenivsky as the people who fired the guns that day. here's the reaction on the steps of the court within the last few minutes. while we welcome today's conviction, our thoughts are firmly with pc sharon beshenivsky, teresa milburn and their family and friends. sharon and teresa went to work on that day back in november 2005 fully expecting to come home to their families and friends. due to the horrific actions of those individuals who have now been convicted for those offences, that was not the case. west yorkshire police have remained doggedly determined to bring all of those to justice that were responsible for these offences. i know you have been talking to sharon's husband, paul. he has often been in court throughout this trial. have we had reaction from him so far? no reaction immediately after the verdict, but we have talked to him in the past, when piran ditta khan was arrested and brought back here to the uk. paul, sharon's husband, was talking about the fact that this was almost like an ongoing nightmare because there was always somebody who was outstanding, always somebody wanted by the police, and he felt like he was reliving it all the time and wanted just to see an end to it full stop. he got some sort of closure and end today because the final member of the gang has been caught. piran ditta khan is 75 years old now and is likely to receive a lengthy sentence when it comes to sentencing. he is not going to be sentenced today. we still have a date yet to be set for that. but he is a man who is likely to die behind bars. i saw paul at the beginning of the trial several weeks ago, to hear the case being set out to hear that heard publicly, and i think, in due course, we will hearfrom him, once sentencing has taken place. the news conference in brussels is still going on. let's go back and hear more of that. i still going on. let's go back and hear more of that.— hear more of that. i have two questions- — hear more of that. i have two questions. can _ hear more of that. i have two questions. can you _ hear more of that. i have two questions. can you share - hear more of that. i have two i questions. can you share more hear more of that. i have two - questions. can you share more about what was _ questions. can you share more about what was discussed with the indo—pacific partners? secondly? the ukrainian _ indo—pacific partners? secondly? the ukrainian foreign minister today told journalists he thinks now it is time _ told journalists he thinks now it is time for— told journalists he thinks now it is time for south korea to actually support— time for south korea to actually support ukraine with lethal weapons, do you _ support ukraine with lethal weapons, do you agree with him? we support ukraine with lethal weapons, do you agree with him?— support ukraine with lethal weapons, do you agree with him? we had a very aood do you agree with him? we had a very good meeting — do you agree with him? we had a very good meeting with _ do you agree with him? we had a very good meeting with our _ do you agree with him? we had a very good meeting with our asia _ do you agree with him? we had a very good meeting with our asia pacific - good meeting with our asia pacific partners, south korea, japan, new zealand and australia, and of course the background is that our security is interlinked, what happens in the indo—pacific matters for europe and vice versa. and the war in ukraine demonstrates that very clearly because we see how china is propping up because we see how china is propping up the russian war economy, delivering equipment which is also used in the russian military industry. in turn, moscow is hoping its future to beijing and north korea are delivering missile trains to russia and in return russia is delivering technology for the missile and nuclear programmes of these countries. so the idea that we have one security in europe and one in asia doesn't work, our security is not regional but global. and as has been stated from leaders in the region, what happens in ukraine today can happen in the south china sea tomorrow. so this interlinked security is the reason why it is important we work together and this is partly about practical cooperation, we are looking into what more we can do, both in providing support to ukraine but also on cyber, hybrid and other areas. we hope we will submit new projects in washington to build on what we already do with our asia—pacific partners, but also sending a very clear message to moscow and beijing that actually we see what they do and we see how the powers are more and more aligned and that makes it more important that like—minded nations and states are working together. this is not about making nato a global alliance, it will remain an alliance in north america and europe, but our security is interlinked with the security in the asia—pacific region and we need to work with our partners in that region to address those global security challenges. when it comes to exactly what specific support the different partners are able to provide to ukraine, we can't be too specific to any support is welcome. several partners have provided support to nato's assistance package, australia has delivered armoured vehicles, and they have surveillance planes in poland, and other partners have delivered other types of support. it is for individual partners to decide what happens. individual partners to decide what ha ens. ., ., individual partners to decide what hauens. ., ., , individual partners to decide what hauens. ., ., the happens. two more questions,. the kremlin's spokesperson _ happens. two more questions,. the kremlin's spokesperson said - happens. two more questions,. the kremlin's spokesperson said that. kremlin's spokesperson said that nato countries _ kremlin's spokesperson said that nato countries are _ kremlin's spokesperson said that nato countries are now _ kremlin's spokesperson said that nato countries are now involvedl kremlin's spokesperson said that. nato countries are now involved in ukraine, _ nato countries are now involved in ukraine, and— nato countries are now involved in ukraine, and they— nato countries are now involved in ukraine, and they are _ nato countries are now involved in ukraine, and they are expanding l ukraine, and they are expanding their— ukraine, and they are expanding their military _ ukraine, and they are expanding their military infrastructure - ukraine, and they are expanding their military infrastructure to i ukraine, and they are expanding i their military infrastructure to our borders, — their military infrastructure to our borders, he — their military infrastructure to our borders, he said, _ their military infrastructure to our borders, he said, so _ their military infrastructure to our borders, he said, so now- their military infrastructure to our borders, he said, so now the - borders, he said, so now the situation _ borders, he said, so now the situation is _ borders, he said, so now the situation is that _ borders, he said, so now the situation is that the - borders, he said, so now the situation is that the level - borders, he said, so now the situation is that the level is i borders, he said, so now the . situation is that the level is split between — situation is that the level is split between russia _ situation is that the level is split between russia and _ situation is that the level is split between russia and nato - situation is that the level is split between russia and nato to - situation is that the level is split between russia and nato to a l situation is that the level is split i between russia and nato to a level of direct _ between russia and nato to a level of direct confrontation, _ between russia and nato to a level of direct confrontation, how - between russia and nato to a level of direct confrontation, how do - between russia and nato to a level of direct confrontation, how do youj of direct confrontation, how do you answer— of direct confrontation, how do you answer to— of direct confrontation, how do you answer to this? _ of direct confrontation, how do you answer to this?— of direct confrontation, how do you answer to this? nato is not party to the conflict, — answer to this? nato is not party to the conflict, and _ answer to this? nato is not party to the conflict, and it _ answer to this? nato is not party to the conflict, and it will— answer to this? nato is not party to the conflict, and it will not - answer to this? nato is not party to the conflict, and it will not be - the conflict, and it will not be party to the conflict, but nato is providing support to ukraine to help them defend themselves. wejust providing support to ukraine to help them defend themselves. we just have to remember what this is, this is one country, russia, attacking another, invading another country, moving forces, battle tanks, planes, missiles across the border to take control of ukraine, and that is a violation of law. that is what happened on the 24th of february and of course ukraine is defending their land and territory, and it is enshrined in international law and the un charter that self defence is legal, you have the right to defend yourself, and that is exactly what ukraine does and we have the right to support ukraine in defending themselves and that's what nato allies are doing. we don't have any plans of having nato combat troops inside ukraine, there have been no requests for that, but the ukrainians are asking for equipment, ammunition, weapons, and we are providing that the ukraine, but that doesn't make is party to the conflict. ., ., ., ,, ., conflict. continuing to take more ruestions conflict. continuing to take more questions from _ conflict. continuing to take more questions from brussels, - conflict. continuing to take more questions from brussels, we - conflict. continuing to take more questions from brussels, we will come away and return with anything significant in the next little while so we will continue to monitor what is happening there. incidentally and separately, david cameron has been in brussels, he has spoken to the bbc�*s ukraine cast live from brussels. you can listen on bbc sounds or wherever you get your bbc podcasts. to the middle east now — three former supreme courtjustices are among more than 600 legal experts calling for the uk government to end weapons sales to israel. in a letter to the prime minister, they say exports must end, writing that "the provision of military assistance and material to israel may render the uk complicit in genocide as well as serious breaches of international humanitarian law. " rishi sunak is already facing growing cross—party pressure after seven aid workers — including three britons — were killed in an air strike in gaza. president biden is due to speak to the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, for the first time since that strike that has brought international condemnation. here's our diplomatic correspondent james landale. more than 600 lawyers have written to the government because they believe there is a risk it's breaking international law. they said serious action is needed to avoid uk complicity in grave breaches of international law including potential violations of the genocide convention. to continue the genocide convention. to continue the sale of weapons to israel falls significantly short of your government's obligations under international law. the whole framework of _ under international law. the whole framework of international - under international law. the whole framework of international law - framework of international law dictates that the fa ct fact that you have been provoked and attacked, it does not mean to say you can do whatever you like, it doesn't mean to say that you can indiscriminately slaughter innocent civilians and children, it doesn't mean to say that you can attack aid convoys. british arms sales to israel are small, some are parts for american—made war planes, but halting the exports would be a huge diplomatic blow to israel. at westminster labour are pushing ministers to publish their internal legal advice about israel's compliance with international law, the lib dems and snp want arms sales to stop now as do some conservatives.— to stop now as do some conservatives. , , . ., to stop now as do some conservatives. , ,.. ., conservatives. the sheer scale of destruction _ conservatives. the sheer scale of destruction is _ conservatives. the sheer scale of destruction is enough _ conservatives. the sheer scale of destruction is enough for- conservatives. the sheer scale of destruction is enough for us - conservatives. the sheer scale of destruction is enough for us to i conservatives. the sheer scale of i destruction is enough for us to take even _ destruction is enough for us to take even a _ destruction is enough for us to take even a political view, even if you don't _ even a political view, even if you don't want — even a political view, even if you don't want to take a legal one, to say the _ don't want to take a legal one, to say the arms should not be sold to israei~ _ say the arms should not be sold to israei~ you — say the arms should not be sold to israel. you have seen the wanton destruction— israel. you have seen the wanton destruction of acres of land in gaza, — destruction of acres of land in gaza, it — destruction of acres of land in gaza, it is _ destruction of acres of land in gaza, it is leading to starvation and famine, it is reaching an obscene _ and famine, it is reaching an obscene position where we are having to build _ obscene position where we are having to build a _ obscene position where we are having to build a supply bridge in from the sea to— to build a supply bridge in from the sea to gaza — to build a supply bridge in from the sea to gaza and drop stuff from the air to _ sea to gaza and drop stuff from the air to try— sea to gaza and drop stuff from the air to try and give food to needy people — air to try and give food to needy people when this has been created by a so-caiied _ people when this has been created by a so—called ally. you have to ask whether— a so—called ally. you have to ask whether they are any longer fit to be an— whether they are any longer fit to be an ally— whether they are any longer fit to be an ally of decent western countries. be an ally of decent western countries— be an ally of decent western countries. ~ , , countries. some mps believe the foreian countries. some mps believe the foreign office — countries. some mps believe the foreign office is _ countries. some mps believe the foreign office is ready _ countries. some mps believe the foreign office is ready to - countries. some mps believe the foreign office is ready to do - countries. some mps believe the foreign office is ready to do just| foreign office is ready to do just that but claimed downing street is resisting, but officials deny this and the former home secretary who is visiting israel says number 10 should stick to its guns. taste visiting israel says number 10 should stick to its guns. we owe it to israel should stick to its guns. we owe it to israel to — should stick to its guns. we owe it to israel to stand _ should stick to its guns. we owe it to israel to stand with _ should stick to its guns. we owe it to israel to stand with them. - should stick to its guns. we owe it to israel to stand with them. i - to israel to stand with them. i think— to israel to stand with them. i think we — to israel to stand with them. i think we should _ to israel to stand with them. i think we should maintain - to israel to stand with them. i think we should maintain this| think we should maintain this military— think we should maintain this military relationship- think we should maintain this military relationship from - think we should maintain this . military relationship from which think we should maintain this - military relationship from which we benefit _ military relationship from which we benefit just — military relationship from which we benefit just as _ military relationship from which we benefit just as much _ military relationship from which we benefit just as much as _ military relationship from which we benefit just as much as they - military relationship from which we benefit just as much as they do, i military relationship from which we. benefit just as much as they do, and ithink— benefit just as much as they do, and i think it _ benefit just as much as they do, and i think it would _ benefit just as much as they do, and i think it would be _ benefit just as much as they do, and i think it would be a _ benefit just as much as they do, and i think it would be a tragic— benefit just as much as they do, and i think it would be a tragic shame . i think it would be a tragic shame if were _ i think it would be a tragic shame if were to — i think it would be a tragic shame if were to walk— i think it would be a tragic shame if were to walk away _ i think it would be a tragic shame if were to walk away from - i think it would be a tragic shame if were to walk away from our - if were to walk away from our closest — if were to walk away from our closest aiiy _ if were to walk away from our closest ally in _ if were to walk away from our closest ally in this _ if were to walk away from our closest ally in this region. - if were to walk away from our closest ally in this region. these lethal air strikes _ closest ally in this region. these lethal air strikes are _ closest ally in this region. these lethal air strikes are disrupting l lethal air strikes are disrupting more than just lethal air strikes are disrupting more thanjust aid lethal air strikes are disrupting more than just aid supplies to gaza, they are also causing tensions within israel's allies, and the government has a difficult decision to make. no supply trucks have entered northern gaza