A newly released video shows Sean “Diddy” Combs manhandling and kicking singer Cassie Ventura – his former girlfriend – in plain view of hotel surveillance cameras in 2016, before the rapper, music producer and businessman rapidly settled a lawsuit that she brought against him this past November, according to footage exclusively obtained by CNN.

The video in question illustrates in the most graphic nature possible one of the beatings alleged and described in Ventura’s lawsuit, which Combs had vehemently denied.

Ventura’s lawsuit preceded federal authorities’ March raid of Combs’ properties in Los Angeles and Miami as part of a sex-trafficking investigation.

Combs, in the footage obtained by CNN, is seen exiting a room at the since-shuttered InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles’s Century City neighborhood while holding a towel around his waist. He runs down a hallway after Ventura, grabs her by the back of the neck and throws her to the floor near a bank of elevators.

The video – which had never before been seen publicly – shows Combs then kick Ventura twice and drag her before letting her go and walking away.

Ventura later stands up, gathers some of her items from the floor, and picks up a telephone on the wall next to the elevators. Combs soon returns – still clad in just a towel and socks – and shoves Ventura into a corner while they are in front of a mirror directly across from one of the security cameras that captured footage of the attack.

He throws something at Ventura before starting to walk away. The clip shows Combs then double back to Ventura when one of the elevator doors opens and someone apparently exits.

A statement that Ventura’s attorney, Douglas H Wigdor, provided to CNN called the video “gut-wrenching”. Wigdor said the footage “further confirmed the disturbing and predatory behavior of Mr Combs”.

“Words cannot express the courage and fortitude that Ms Ventura has shown in coming forward to bring this to light,” Wigdor said.

Combs did not immediately comment on the footage, which vividly contradicted his prior vehement denials of Ventura’s allegations.

Ventura’s lawsuit in November accused Combs of rape and severe physical abuse spanning more than a decade. She also detailed how he allegedly forced her to have sex with male prostitutes and used his network of powerful entertainment contacts to entrap her in the relationship, which reportedly started in 2007 – when she was 19 and he was 37 – and lasted on and off until 2018.

Combs and Ventura settled the lawsuit one day after she filed it. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and commentary about the agreement overwhelmingly focused on how quickly Combs moved to resolve the case in a manner that prevented it from even coming close to a courtroom.

Since then, Combs has faced several more lawsuits attributing rapes, sexual assaults, other instances of physical violence and “revenge porn” distribution to him. Combs has denied all allegations while pledging to “fight for [his] name”.

The extent of Combs’ metastasizing legal problems became clearer than ever when federal agents searched his homes in Los Angeles and Miami in the course of a sex-trafficking investigation. The 54-year-old three-time Grammy winner once known as P Diddy, Puff Daddy and Love spoke with authorities during the searches but was not detained, was not charged and was not restricted from traveling as he wished, his attorney told media outlets that day.

In the US, the domestic violence hotline is 1-800-799-SAFE (7233). In the UK, call the national domestic abuse helpline on 0808 2000 247, or visit Women’s Aid. In Australia, the national family violence counselling service is on 1800 737 732. Other international helplines may be found via www.befrienders.org

Authorities rescued a 17-year old girl after she was trafficked to Ventura county, California, from Mexico two months ago and texted 911 for help.

On Thursday, the Ventura county sheriff’s office announced that on 9 May authorities rescued the girl after she sent messages to 911. The text message correspondence began with a call taker at a 911 communication center, according to the sheriff’s office, which added that the messages were received in Spanish and translated into English.

In the messages, the girl, who did not know where she and her captor were, was able to identify landmarks and provide other identifiable information, authorities said. As the 911 dispatcher corresponded with the girl, other communications center team members delivered real-time information to authorities who were responding to the search.

After approximately 20 minutes of searching the area of Casitas Springs, a community located about 86 miles from Los Angeles, authorities located the girl. She was evaluated and transferred to Ventura county child family services until she can be reunited with her family. Authorities did not disclose whether the girl will remain in the US or return to Mexico.

The suspect has been identified as 31-year-old Gerardo Cruz from Veracruz, Mexico. Booked at the pre-trial detention facility, Cruz has been charged with human trafficking, forcible rape, lewd acts upon a child, luring and sexual penetration with force. He remains in custody with bail set at $500,000.

In its announcement, authorities hailed the ability to send text messages to emergency call centers, adding, “This incident also utilized integrated translation technology as the call taker only spoke English and the victim only spoke and wrote in Spanish. The call taker was able to quickly interpret and text back a response in English, which was quickly re-translated to Spanish for the victim.”

California is one of the largest sites of human trafficking in the US, according to the state’s office of the attorney general. Since 2015, between 20 and 30% of human trafficking cases in California that are reported annually to the National Human Trafficking Hotline involved children under 18 years old.

Lacey Carroll headed straight to Harborview Medical Center after touching down in Seattle following a three-day stay on David Copperfield’s private island in the Bahamas. It was August 2007 and – according to police records – she had gone to get medical treatment for sexual assault.

The 20-year-old later alleged to Seattle police and in court filings that she had embarked on the long journey to Musha Cay – the islands in the Bahamas that Copperfield reportedly bought for $50m in 2006 – because she had been offered a chance to do promotional work and some modeling there along with a team of others. Instead, she claimed, she found herself alone with Copperfield and a few members of his staff. Copperfield, she alleged, raped and assaulted her multiple times.

Carroll’s allegations in 2007 set off an FBI investigation and created a media storm around Copperfield. More than two years later, the FBI dropped the matter with little explanation. No charges were filed.

An investigation by the Guardian US has re-examined Carroll’s claims and the depiction of the case in the media, as part of its broader investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by the master illusionist. Lawyers for the illusionist have denied all allegations.

The prevalent public perception at the time was that Carroll had ultimately been discredited after being charged with a crime in an unrelated matter. Some 2010 media reports noted the FBI had dropped its years-long investigation at the same time, suggesting a link. But the Guardian’s reporting found this narrative was inaccurate.

Copperfield said in an interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2012 that he had been “exonerated” by federal authorities. A source close to the federal investigation said in connection to the case, “declining to charge someone is not equivalent to exonerating someone or declaring them innocent”. When asked why the FBI investigation had taken more than two years, the person said: “They tried very, very hard.” The Guardian’s investigation found that the federal investigation faced jurisdictional challenges, given that the alleged incidents occurred on the Bahamian island.

Lawyers for Copperfield said he denies “all the allegations” made by Carroll and that the matter had been “extensively investigated” by law enforcement.

The alleged assault on Musha Cay

Carroll’s first interactions with David Copperfield bore many of the hallmarks of the accounts of other young women who have made sexual misconduct allegations against the celebrity illusionist.

Carroll met the entertainer at one of his shows at a venue in Tri-Cities, Washington, in January 2007. According to a civil case Carroll filed in Washington state in 2009, Copperfield had called her on stage to assist him with one of his tricks. After the performance one of Copperfield’s assistants asked her to wait in her seat after the show. She was given a questionnaire, and told that a picture of her with Copperfield would be taken and be attached to the form.

According to the lawsuit, one of Copperfield’s assistants told Carroll the magician had a private island, and that she might be asked to participate in promotional activities there.

The alleged exchange appears to follow standard procedures followed by his staff, as outlined in an internal memo.

The memo, which was obtained by the celebrity gossip site TMZ and published in 2007, described how Copperfield would scan the audience and pick women he thought had “potential for future projects”. If he gestured toward these women, the memo said, staff were expected to “pull” them into after-show “meet and greets” with him. The memo instructed staff to give the women questionnaires and take polaroids and tell them about Copperfield’s islands in the Bahamas and how they might have opportunities to do marketing work there. In special cases, the memo suggests, Copperfield would seek to speak to “the prospects” about their possibilities privately.

In response to questions from the Guardian, Copperfield’s lawyers declined to comment on the memo.

In her lawsuit, Carroll said her family was not allowed to accompany her when she went backstage to meet Copperfield.

Copperfield and Carroll began to exchange phone calls, with Carroll ultimately being invited to the island.

Carroll alleged in her lawsuit that Copperfield’s assistant assured her others would be there for the promotional opportunity. When Carroll asked whether her boyfriend could come, she was told “no”, she alleged; but she said she was told everyone would have their own room, and she would have access to email and telephone coverage so that she could stay in touch with her family.

In the 2009 civil lawsuit, Carroll described her journey from Seattle to the small private island, and claimed that once she got there “no one else was in attendance” apart from Copperfield and some of his staff. Copperfield allegedly told her more people would be arriving the next day. That night, the two had dinner and then began to watch a movie when – Carroll alleged – Copperfield attacked and raped her with a dildo. Carroll said in the lawsuit that she physically and verbally resisted and struggled to get away.

Carroll claimed she tried to call her family and boyfriend but was unable to reach them on her mobile phone. She then reached her boyfriend using the house phone, but was interrupted during the call when Copperfield entered her room, she said.

Carroll’s boyfriend at the time, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the account to the Guardian, saying he remembered getting a call from Carroll that was “strained” and “not normal”.

The next day, according to her lawsuit, Copperfield ordered Carroll to get naked on Copperfield’s private beach, and when she refused he held her head under water, causing her to fear she would drown. Copperfield warned her not to tell anyone about what had happened, the lawsuit alleged. She claimed Copperfield untied her swimsuit top and forced Carroll to masturbate him while he fondled her breasts. She said she walked on the beach and then returned to her room and went into the shower. According to the lawsuit, Copperfield pulled her out of the shower and assaulted her again.

In response to questions from the Guardian, lawyers for Copperfield pointed to a statement Copperfield made in 2009, when he claimed that Carroll had “never complained to anyone about her treatment”, had not been seen with bruises “or other signs of assault” and had been suntanning in her bikini. Copperfield also said at the time – and his lawyers reiterated in written responses to the Guardian – that Carroll had access to jet skis and boats, which Copperfield claimed she could have “taken to the neighboring inhabited islands that are minutes away”. He also suggested that Carroll could have called 911 on his private island. Copperfield’s lawyers said more than 20 people had been on the island at the time and that witnesses – whose names were not provided – said she was “upbeat” and “showed no sign of concern, discomfort or unhappiness”.

Carroll spent the next day and night on the island, according to the civil suit. When it was time to return home, Carroll said a golf cart arrived to transport her to a boat, where men she believed were Copperfield’s staff were also present, along with a woman who Carroll said she had not previously seen. She was taken to another small island, she alleged in the civil complaint, and put on a small plane to Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Nicholas Schrauwen, a contractor who worked for Copperfield at the time and recalled being on a plane with Carroll as she returned home, said he was later questioned by authorities.

In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “Her head was facing out the window the whole time … What I thought about was that she was well dressed and definitely upset,” Schrauwen said. “I think she was crying, not sobbing.”

Once Carroll was back in Seattle, she immediately headed to the sexual assault and trauma center at Harborview Medical Center, where she was met by her mother and then boyfriend, police records show.

The Seattle police took her statement that day. Police records obtained by the Guardian through a public records request show that Carroll gave hospital staff a napkin she said she used to wipe some of Copperfield’s semen off her and underwent a medical examination with a rape kit.

Lawyers for Copperfield did not answer the Guardian’s questions about whether he had sex with Carroll.

It is not clear if the kit was ever tested or what the results of the test were. The matter was then transferred to the FBI, which – months later – would launch raids on multiple Copperfield properties in Las Vegas.

The FBI investigation

One of the 16 women who have alleged that Copperfield engaged in sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior remembers when she first heard the news on television – sometime around 2008 – that the illusionist was under criminal investigation. When she heard Copperfield’s lawyer denying Carroll’s allegations, she got in touch with the FBI and made a statement.

She was not the only one.

The Guardian has talked to four other people who say they spoke to the FBI after Carroll’s allegations against Copperfield became public. They include Brittney Lewis, whose allegation that Copperfield drugged and sexually assaulted her was detailed by the Guardian on Thursday . Lewis said she reached out to the FBI after she saw the news about Carroll’s allegations. A friend of Lewis’s at the time, who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity, said she also talked with the FBI to corroborate Lewis’s account. Lawyers for Copperfield have denied Lewis’s allegations.

Another individual who contacted the FBI told the Guardian that years earlier he had heard that two women believed they had been drugged by Copperfield before he had sex with them. The individual told the Guardian he shared the name of one of the women, Gillian*, with the FBI. Gillian’s allegations, which were denied by Copperfield’s lawyers, were reported in the Guardian on Wednesday. Gillian told the Guardian she was never contacted by the FBI.

Another source who spoke to the Guardian said she was called by the FBI because agents apparently learned she had once attended a Copperfield show, had filled out a questionnaire and had been invited to the island for a modeling opportunity after Copperfield contacted her.

The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, declined to take Copperfield up on the invitation, in part because she doubted it was a legitimate job offer.

A US prosecutor at the time said in a court filing that federal investigators had collected more than 300 witness statements over the course of its investigation.

A person with direct knowledge of the federal investigation declined to comment on the specific claims that witnesses made, but said that while such additional evidence can be helpful in sex crime prosecution it may not always be admissible, as the court consider factors like how long ago the other allegations occurred, the strength of the evidence relating to the prior incident, and how similar or dissimilar the claims are.

As the FBI continued its investigation, Carroll filed her civil lawsuit in the western district of Washington. The lawsuit sought damages for past and future emotional and physical suffering, emotional and psychological injury, past and future impaired earning capacity, and medical bills for past and future expenses. She was 22 years old at the time and represented by a seasoned Washington state attorney, Rebecca Roe.

FBI and grand jury investigations are usually cloaked in secrecy but statements filed by prosecutors in Carroll’s civil claim against Copperfield disclosed some details about their work.

According to statements filed by law enforcement officials in court, agents had opened their investigation in the summer of 2007 but kept the inquiry secret from Copperfield until October 2007, when authorities raided several of his properties in Las Vegas, recovering “thousands of documents and several computers”.

CNN at the time quoted Copperfield’s lawyer, David Chesnoff, “categorically” denying Carroll’s allegation.

“Mr Copperfield’s reputation precedes him as an impeccable gentleman,” Chesnoff said.

“So we’re obviously disturbed that those kinds of allegations are being made, but we believe that that’s a common event now, unfortunately, for celebrated people to be falsely accused,” lawyer said.

“Certainly no one [Copperfield] ever had a relationship with could ever say that about him,” he said

About one week after the raid – on 26 October 2007 – staff who worked for Copperfield companies were reminded in a letter from attorneys that confidentiality agreements they had signed precluded them from disclosing matters to the press and media, according to a letter obtained and published by TMZ.

“We will take all necessary and appropriate action to enforce the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement and other confidentiality agreements, oral or written,” the letter by Laxalt & Nomura, a Nevada-based firm, said. “The confidentiality agreements do not preclude you from speaking with law enforcement in the course of an investigation, if you so choose.”

Copperfield’s lawyers said in response to the Guardian’s questions that it was “not unusual” to remind people of their obligations of confidentiality shortly after a raid by the FBI, especially as they were “expressly told the confidentiality agreements did not preclude them from speaking with law enforcement”.

The civil case in Washington was paused while the FBI investigation continued.

But the FBI and US attorney’s office faced serious challenges pursuing the case.

A source with direct knowledge of the matter said the investigation was closed around December 2009, after more than two years. The source claimed the decision reflected the difficulty of prosecuting cases in which the alleged crime occurred overseas, because, the source said, prosecutors would have had to prove that some criminal conduct occurred in the US in connection to the allegation.

In a statement in response to the Guardian’s questions about its handling of the case, a spokesperson for the US attorney’s office in Washington said: “After a thorough investigation by experienced prosecutors of all available evidence, facts, and jurisdictional considerations, the US attorney’s office determined it was unable to prove a federal crime occurred in the US beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The US prosecutors’ decision, a person close to the matter said, was made before another twist in the case emerged, which would come to dominate headlines and be used by Copperfield to allege Carroll was a liar.

A night in Bellevue

The 27 January 2010 headline on ABC News – “Woman in David Copperfield’s Rape Probe Arrested” – could not have been more welcome by Copperfield and his legal team. News organizations and outlets across the country widely published similar stories: Carroll had been charged in Bellevue, Washington, with prostitution and providing a false statement to police, regarding a December 2009 incident in which – news organizations reported – she claimed to have been sexually assaulted by a 31-year-old man named Sean Loomis.

Patty Eakes, one of Copperfield’s lawyers, said the developments vindicated Copperfield and “confirmed what he has said all along – this woman tried to extort money from him by making false claims.”

Behind the headlines, however, police records obtained by the Guardian appear to reveal a more complicated story.

Carroll was supposed to see a Twilight movie with a friend on that night, according to a statement she gave to police. But her plans changed. She had been texting with Loomis, a customer at Earl’s, a restaurant where she worked, and decided that she and her friend would meet him for drinks at a bar called Lucky Strike.

According to her police statement, Carroll had two-three drinks and began to feel “strange and dizzy” and agreed to leave with Loomis, believing they were meeting up with another friend. From that point, she told police, “everything went blank”. She came to, she told police, with Loomis on top of her at a local Bellevue hotel and she had no idea how much time had passed. Feeling scared, and realizing she was not wearing tights or underwear, she allegedly ran out to the front desk and asked hotel staff to call her a taxi. She told police all she had wanted was to go home.

Loomis, police records show, called the police first, just minutes after Carroll left their hotel room and talked to staff at the concierge desk. In a transcript of his call to 911, Loomis claimed that Carroll had told him she was “calling the cops”.

“Honestly … I don’t need this right now,” Loomis told the 911 dispatcher, who asked whether Loomis wanted to be put in touch with an officer. “Yeah, I actually … I would love to because I think she’s done this before.” It was an apparent reference to Carroll’s allegations against Copperfield.

The Guardian tried to reach out to Loomis by phone and email but could not reach him for comment.

Loomis later claimed to authorities that, while they were in their hotel room, Carroll allegedly offered to engage in “continued sexual activity” in return for $2,000, an offer that he told police he refused. Loomis said he and Carroll had engaged in “consensual touching” and that her allegations of sexual assault were “a lie”.

But Carroll had not alleged with certainty that she had been sexually assaulted. Her description of events, police records and transcripts show, were always conditioned by statements that she was unsure about what exactly had occurred.

In her 911 call to the police later that night, a transcript of which was seen by the Guardian, Carroll initially claimed she had been “physically assaulted” but was not injured. As the call progressed, Carroll was asked by the dispatcher whether she had been physically assaulted and she answered: “I don’t think so”. When the dispatcher asked if she had been sexually assaulted she said: “Yeah, I think so. I really don’t know. I was just scared and I took off.”

Under police questioning, Carroll alleged she had blacked out that night. When police asked Carroll whether she had been flirting with Loomis earlier in the evening she declared – in a statement that would later be held against her – “Nothing like that.”

A friend of Carroll’s who had been with Carroll and Loomis that night at Lucky Strike contradicted Carroll’s claim when police questioned her. She alleged that Loomis and Carroll had been talking in a “sexual” way that made her uncomfortable, according to police records.

Carroll was asked whether she had ever left her drink unattended while she was drinking with Loomis. She said she had. According to police records, Carroll’s urine was tested for Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid, a “date rape” drug also known as Liquid Ecstacy, and she tested negative. No other drug tests were performed.

Carroll also denied ever seeking money from Loomis in exchange for sex.

Police records show Carroll was asked to go to a local hospital to have a rape kit exam, but that Carroll declined to have the evidence released to the police. In a rare move, the police then obtained the rape kit evidence via a search warrant.

“[It was] highly unusual,” Carroll’s lawyer Rebecca Roe told the Guardian.

Carroll voluntarily agreed to take a breathalyzer test, and her blood alcohol content measured .14, which is close to a state of “severe impairment”, according to the National Institutes of Health standards.

In his own statements to police, Loomis claimed Carroll had been “all over him”. One witness who worked at the hotel told the police the couple seemed intoxicated when they were checking in and that Carroll was slurring her speech. The same hotel staff member told police he later saw Carroll coming out of the room crying and telling the concierge that her companion had tried to take advantage of her. But the witness said he never heard her say she had been assaulted.

Carroll told police she was not interested in filing charges against Loomis and that she wanted to put the matter behind her. When she was asked why she had called the police that night, Carroll said it was at the urging of her ex-boyfriend, who had allegedly told her it was important to report what happened to the police. She also wanted her employer at Earl’s to know, she said, because she would feel uncomfortable seeing Loomis at the restaurant where she was a waitress.

What Carroll – who had no criminal history – did not know at the time is that the head detective overseeing the case, Jerry Johnson, who is now retired, got wind of Carroll’s allegations against Copperfield over the course of the police’s investigation into events that night.

In an interview with the Guardian, Johnson said he called Patty Eakes, Copperfield’s lawyer , while he was investigating the Bellevue matter, to alert Eakes that Carroll was involved in a new case. In an interview, he could not recall exactly why he made that decision, or how he knew that Eakes was involved in a separate case involving Carroll. Police records show he called Eakes on 8 December 2009, six days after the alleged incident, even as his investigation was ongoing. Police records show he also called the US attorney’s office.

“It is the fair thing to do when a situation has occurred with similar aspects to it. That’s just fair play, and that’s what I did,” Johnson said.

But Carroll’s lawyer, Rebecca Roe, said she believed the decision to contact Eakes was improper.

An independent expert and former Boca Raton police chief named Andrew Scott, who now consults police departments and law firms on police practices, said he did not believe Johnson had any reason to reach out to Copperfield’s attorney from an investigative perspective. The decision to reach out to the US attorney’s office was proper, he said.

Before joining private practice, Eakes was a senior prosecutor who led high-profile criminal cases in Washington state. Johnson acknowledged in an interview with the Guardian that he had a previous professional relationship with Eakes when he called to tell her about the Bellevue case, but said he had only shared basic details with her.

Records show the King county prosecutor declined to prosecute Carroll, but that local prosecutors in Bellevue decided to take on her case and charge Carroll with two misdemeanor offenses: prostitution and making a false statement to a public servant. Johnson said in one document related to the case that Carroll and Loomis had been captured on security cameras exhibiting “normal and romantic behaviors” toward each other at the hotel while they waited to get a room. That, Johnson said, undercut Carroll’s statement that she had been in a black out state.

Asked why he believed Carroll had been charged with prostitution, Johnson said he could not fully remember the details. He recalled that Carroll was a “very, very attractive woman” and said that he believed as a pair, she and Loomis were “dramatically mismatched”.

Copperfield referenced the security footage many years later, in 2018 when Brittney Lewis came forward in The Wrap and claimed she had been drugged and assaulted by Copperfield in the late 1980s. In a tweet in response to the story, Copperfield – who denied Lewis’s allegations – said the “end result” of a previous rape allegation had been that his accuser was “caught by law enforcement making the same false claim about another man.”

He added: “The proof was on tape. The accuser was arrested and charged.”

Lawyers for Copperfield also claimed – inaccurately – Carroll had been charged criminally “for making a false rape claim against another man.”

Carroll was never charged with falsely accusing Loomis of rape or sexual assault. She was instead charged with “obstructing” the Bellevue investigation because she denied flirting with Loomis while they were at Lucky Strike. Later, she acknowledged in a handwritten guilty plea that she had, in fact, flirted with Loomis. The court fined her $953 and ordered her to perform 30 hours of community service.

The prostitution charge against Carroll was dismissed, according to court records, which did not provide further details.

Some of these details were never widely reported in coverage of Copperfield’s case. ABC News reported that it was “no illusion” that Carroll had been arrested in connection to another case “where she alleged rape” and the Associated Press reported that she had been “charged with fabricating sexual assault claims against another man”.

Carroll did not respond to multiple requests to be interviewed. She has never given a media interview. She dropped her civil case against Copperfield shortly after the US attorney’s office said it had closed its investigation of Copperfield.

Copperfield’s lawyer said at the time that her allegations were a “pathetic attempt to extort Mr Copperfield”.

Through an attorney, Carroll issued a statement at the time, saying: “It has never been about money … I just wanted him held accountable for what he did.” Her lawyer added: “Sexual assault is a very traumatic event which has a long lasting impact on the victim. This is even more true when the perpetrator is a celebrity with the money and power to relentlessly attack the victim while shielding his own acts from scrutiny. Ms Carroll feels she has done all she reasonably can to bring this to light.”

Carroll’s lawyers also claimed in a statement they released when they dropped their civil case that Carroll had been subjected by Copperfield’s team to “intense scrutiny and constant surveillance, while her family, friends, and co-workers have been besieged with subpoenas and demands for personal information”. Her lawyer did not provide additional details to the Guardian.

As the civil case came to a close, a reporter for the Seattle Times requested that the judge unseal court records related to the closed FBI investigation. Carroll’s lawyer had suggested in a press release that the sealed records supported Carroll’s allegations and contained some evidence that Copperfield had a “scheme of targeting young women who attend his shows” and “statements of other women who corroborate [Carroll’s] claims”. Federal prosecutors didn’t object to the records being unsealed, but Copperfield’s lawyers did. Judge John Coughenour rejected the Seattle Times request and the documents remain under seal.

The Guardian asked Copperfield’s lawyers if they would support the release of the records now. The lawyers said it was “wholly unreasonable” for the Guardian to “suggest that our client should give them carte blanche simply to rake over these historic matters”.

Copperfield, the ‘victim’

Copperfield’s secluded group of islands – which he rents out and calls The Islands of Copperfield Bay – continue to be a holiday destination for the rich and famous. A stay on the island is currently advertised at $57,000 a night and previous guests reportedly have included Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates and Penelope Cruz.

In 2012, two years after federal authorities closed their investigation into allegations Copperfield had raped Carroll on Musha Cay, Oprah travelled to the island to interview the man she called “iconic for all time for our culture” for a special on her network.

“Everything is beautiful in the Bahamas!” Oprah swooned as the pair rode around on a golf cart.

The pair discussed Copperfield’s views on marriage, his childhood struggles with a mother he claimed was abusive, and his place in history alongside Houdini.

In an apologetic tone, Oprah then broached the topic that had dogged Copperfield for years.

“This is a beautiful life, but it comes with a price,” she began. “Meaning, people are out to get you, [you’re] easily betrayed, taken advantage of, all that stuff,” she said, in a clear reference to Carroll’s allegation.

“To be falsely accused of something that horrendous is devastating for yourself, your friends, your family,” Copperfield said. Indeed, he claimed he had not only been exonerated, but “I was the victim. Big difference.”

The two most famous sets of initials in US politics clashed in a chaotic House hearing on Thursday, as the progressive star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC, objected fiercely to an attack on another Democrat by the far-right Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, or MTG.

The oversight committee hearing concerned Republican attempts to hold the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt, for refusing to release tapes of interviews between Joe Biden and the special counsel Robert Hur.

Things went wrong when MTG made a partisan point, trying to tie Democrats to the judge in Donald Trump’s criminal hush-money case – which, by drawing a number of Republicans to the New York courtroom to support Trump, was responsible for the hearing starting late in the day.

In answer to MTG, Jasmine Crockett of Texas said: “Please tell me what that has to do with Merrick Garland … Do you know what we’re here for? You know we’re here about AG Garland?”

Greene, a conspiracy theorist from Georgia, said: “I don’t think you know what you’re here for … I think your fake eyelashes are messing up what you’re reading.”

Amid jeers and calls for order, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said: “That’s beneath even you, Miss Greene.”

AOC, of New York, demanded MTG’s words be taken down.

As defined by the Congressional Research Service, that meant AOC thought MTG had “violated the rules of decorum in the House” and should withdraw her words.

“That is absolutely unacceptable,” AOC said. “How dare you attack the physical appearance of another person?”

MTG said: “Are your feelings hurt?”

AOC said: “Move her words down.”

MTG said: “Aw.”

AOC said: “Oh, girl. Baby girl.”

Amid laughter, MTG said: “Oh really?”

AOC said: “Don’t even play.”

MTG said: “Baby girl? I don’t think so.”

AOC said: “We’re gonna move and we’re gonna take your words down.”

James Comer, the Republican chair from Kentucky, struggled to impose order, eventually saying: “Miss Greene agrees to strike her words.”

AOC said: “I believe she must apologise.”

MTG said: “I’m not apologising.”

AOC said: “Well then, you’re not retracting your words.”

MTG said: “I’m not apologising.”

Comer banged his gavel, pleading: “C’mon, guys.”

MTG said: “Why don’t you debate me?”

As Raskin tried to interject, AOC said: “I think it’s pretty self-evident.”

MTG said: “Yeah, you don’t have enough intelligence.”

Comer cried, “You’re out of order, you’re out of order,” and tried to recognise Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, another pro-Trump extremist. Jeers broke out, Raskin calling: “I move to strike the lady’s words.”

“That’s two requests to strike,” AOC said.

MTG said: “Oh, they cannot take the words.”

Raskin told Comer: “Please get your members under control.”

MTG said: “I repeat again for the second time, yes, I’ll strike my words but I’m not apologising. Not apologising!”

Extraordinarily enough, that wasn’t the end. Crockett asked Comer: “I’m just curious, just to better understand your ruling. If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody’s bleach-blond, bad-built, butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?”

Comer said: “A what now? … I have no idea what you just said.”

Next to him, Raskin buried his face in his hands.

Comer imposed a five-minute recess. When the hearing resumed, Lauren Boebert – the Colorado extremist and theatrical exhibitionist who usually battles for attention with MTG – was of all people the one to offer an apology “to the American people”.

“When things get as heated as they have,” Boebert said, “unfortunately, it’s an embarrassment on our body as a whole.”

The economic damage wrought by climate change is six times worse than previously thought, with global heating set to shrink wealth at a rate consistent with the level of financial losses of a continuing permanent war, research has found.

A 1C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world gross domestic product (GDP), the researchers found, a far higher estimate than that of previous analyses. The world has already warmed by more than 1C (1.8F) since pre-industrial times and many climate scientists predict a 3C (5.4F) rise will occur by the end of this century due to the ongoing burning of fossil fuels, a scenario that the new working paper, yet to be peer-reviewed, states will come with an enormous economic cost.

A 3C temperature increase will cause “precipitous declines in output, capital and consumption that exceed 50% by 2100” the paper states. This economic loss is so severe that it is “comparable to the economic damage caused by fighting a war domestically and permanently”, it adds.

“There will still be some economic growth happening but by the end of the century people may well be 50% poorer than they would’ve been if it wasn’t for climate change,” said Adrien Bilal, an economist at Harvard who wrote the paper with Diego Känzig, an economist at Northwestern University.

“I think everyone could imagine what they would do with an income that is twice as large as it is now. It would change people’s lives.”

Bilal said that purchasing power, which is how much people are able to buy with their money, would already be 37% higher than it is now without global heating seen over the past 50 years. This lost wealth will spiral if the climate crisis deepens, comparable to the sort of economic drain often seen during wartime.

“Let’s be clear that the comparison to war is only in terms of consumption and GDP – all the suffering and death of war is the important thing and isn’t included in this analysis,” Bilal said. “The comparison may seem shocking, but in terms of pure GDP there is an analogy there. It’s a worrying thought.”

The paper places a much higher estimate on economic losses than previous research, calculating a social cost of carbon, which is the cost in dollars of damage done per each additional ton of carbon emissions, to be $1,056 per ton. This compares to a range set out by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that estimates the cost to be around $190 per ton.

Bilal said the new research takes a more “holistic” look at the economic cost of climate change by analyzing it on a global scale, rather than on an individual country basis. This approach, he said, captured the interconnected nature of the impact of heatwaves, storms, floods and other worsening climate impacts that damage crop yields, reduce worker productivity and reduce capital investment.

“They have taken a step back and linking local impacts with global temperatures,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia University who wasn’t involved in the work and said it was significant. “If the results hold up, and I have no reason to believe they wouldn’t, they will make a massive difference in the overall climate damage estimates.”

The paper found that the economic impact of the climate crisis will be surprisingly uniform around the world, albeit with lower-income countries starting at a lower point in wealth. This should spur wealthy countries such as the US, the paper points out, to take action on reducing planet-heating emissions in its own economic interest.

Even with steep emissions cuts, however, climate change will bear a heavy economic cost, the paper finds. Even if global heating was restrained to little more than 1.5C (2.7F) by the end of the century, a globally agreed-upon goal that now appears to have slipped from reach, the GDP losses are still around 15%.

“That is still substantial,” said Bilal. “The economy may keep growing but less than it would because of climate change. It will be a slow-moving phenomenon, although the impacts will be felt acutely when they hit.”

The paper follows separate research released last month that found average incomes will fall by almost a fifth within the next 26 years compared to what they would’ve been without the climate crisis. Rising temperatures, heavier rainfall and more frequent and intense extreme weather are projected to cause $38tn of destruction each year by mid-century, according to the research.

Both papers make clear that the cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels and curbing the impacts of climate change, while not trivial, pale in comparison to the cost of climate change itself. “Unmitigated climate change is a lot more costly than not doing anything about it, that is clear,” said Wagner.

The message pads appear a little faded, but the handwriting on the spiral-bound notebooks is clear enough.

Staff at Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion in Florida’s Palm Beach used the pads to jot down the names of the people who had called the financier, and between 2004 and 2005, one well-known person appeared to be calling persistently.

Not Prince Andrew or Bill Gates, or even Bill Clinton, the former US president, though all of them have come under a spotlight over their relationships with the disgraced billionaire.

The name on the pads is one that – until recently – has had far less scrutiny: David Copperfield.

According to copies of the phone message pads, seen by the Guardian, the magician appears to have left messages for Epstein 16 times in just a few months. The notations on the pads include brief messages such as “it’s important” and “just called to say hello”. One says “it’s jackpot” without further explanation.

In a written response to questions from the Guardian US, Copperfield’s lawyers denied that he had left “multiple messages” for Epstein. “Any messages that were left would have been left by our client’s office in response to a request by Epstein for tickets to a show,” the lawyers said.

The Guardian has examined Copperfield’s contacts with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in prison in 2019, as part of a broader investigation that includes an examination of allegations of sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior by the illusionist. Copperfield has denied ever engaging in sexual misconduct or inappropriate behavior.

The phone messages were not the only alleged contacts between the magician and the financier. The Guardian’s investigation found that Copperfield appears to have met with Epstein at least three times, according to interviews with witnesses, court records and police evidence. Two Epstein victims have separately told the Guardian they were present at such meetings – one at a dinner at Epstein’s home in 2004 and the other at Copperfield’s Las Vegas “warehouse” the same year.

Were the two men close? His lawyers insist not. They said Copperfield – who has not previously commented on his relationship with Epstein – “was not a friend of Jeffrey Epstein”.

They also said he was completely unaware of Epstein’s “horrific crimes”. “Like the rest of the world, he learned about it from the press.”

Sigrid McCawley, a victims’ rights attorney at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner who has represented multiple Epstein victims, argues that there are still questions to answer. “David Copperfield cannot hide or make his close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein disappear,” she said.

‘I was invited backstage’

Copperfield’s alleged relationship with Epstein made headlines just a few months ago, in January of this year, after the illusionist’s name was among those referenced in newly unsealed court records in an Epstein-related case. The inclusion of Copperfield’s name in the court records does not mean he committed any crime or knew about Epstein’s criminal conduct.

The court records included new details about an alleged conversation Copperfield had with a woman, Johanna Sjoberg, who would years later accuse Epstein of abusing her.

In a sworn deposition, Sjoberg alleged she had been invited to a dinner at Epstein’s house and had been offered a chance to meet the famous magician. Sjoberg confirmed to the Guardian that the dinner took place in 2004.

Sjoberg – who was in her 20s at the time of the dinner – claimed in the deposition that she had waited at the house along with a girl who she had not met before and seemed very young. She testified that Copperfield “did some magic tricks”. She said she believed that Copperfield and Epstein were friends.

Epstein was running a well-established operation by this time, recruiting girls and women from local schools and colleges to give him massages that led to sexual abuse. In some cases, Epstein paid the young women to enlist others they knew. There is no suggestion that Copperfield was participating in this scheme or Epstein’s abuse.

In her deposition, a lawyer asked Sjoberg: “Did Copperfield ever discuss Jeffrey’s involvement with young girls with you?”

She responded: “He questioned me if I was aware that girls were getting paid to find other girls.”

In the deposition, she said Copperfield didn’t tell her any specifics, including whether the girls were teenagers.

Asked by the Guardian to explain his remark to Sjoberg, lawyers for Copperfield said in written response that he had “heard a rumor about girls being paid to bring other girls to the Epstein residence”.

The lawyers said Copperfield did not recall from whom he had heard the rumor, and that he had not taken it lightly or dismissed it out of hand.

He asked Sjoberg about it “out of surprise (and concern for her)”, his lawyers said. When Sjoberg said nothing to “reinforce the rumor” and did not express concern, Copperfield dropped the matter, his lawyers said, as he “would have seen no reason to contact law enforcement or to raise the matter with others”.

Sjoberg’s interaction with Copperfield at the dinner was widely reported by media outlets when it was made public in January. Copperfield did not issue a statement at that time.

Speaking for the first time about her interactions with Copperfield since her 2016 deposition was unsealed, Sjoberg told the Guardian she believed Copperfield was “trying to figure out what was happening” with Epstein and that she was “unaware if they kept up any type of friendship after that dinner party”.

She also said that she remained in contact with Copperfield after meeting him for the first time at Epstein’s home. Epstein bought Sjoberg a ticket to a Copperfield show shortly after the 2004 dinner, she said. Epstein “knew I loved magic and watched Copperfield on TV growing up”.

She was in the front row, she said, and Copperfield invited her backstage afterwards. “I got to see his tour bus,” she recalled. “It was as I was leaving that we exchanged numbers. He then invited me to come hang out in Miami for the day before his show the next evening. We went shopping and had lunch.”

Sjoberg said Copperfield made no sexual advances on her and was “nothing but kind to me”.

In total she said she saw him “three times around 2004, only once with Epstein’’ and they spoke “a few times” after the dinner party. She also saw him in Las Vegas, while she was on a girls trip, around 11 years ago, she recalled.

Sjoberg said that she hadn’t heard from the magician since then, until she received a call from Copperfield in March. It was the same day that the Guardian sent a representative for Copperfield questions about his relationship with Epstein.

“He was hoping that I would make a statement about my experiences with him,” she said. She said she told him that she had already exchanged a message with a Guardian reporter in January 2024 about the Copperfield dinner. She then sent him a screenshot of the message she had sent to the Guardian.

Sjoberg said she was initially hesitant to speak on the record to the Guardian about Copperfield, saying: “I know that may create another media circus.” She said she did not wish to say anything further publicly on this subject, due to the unwanted attention that speaking out about Epstein and those around him has already brought her.

Copperfield is not the only famous person Sjoberg said she had met as a result of her relationship with Epstein. As part of the Epstein-related case in which Sjoberg made comments about Copperfield, Sjoberg also described her alleged interactions with Prince Andrew, including her allegation that he touched her breast. Prince Andrew denied the allegation.

‘Magic David called’

The message books that were seized by police in 2005 from Epstein’s Florida home as part of the criminal investigation into Epstein offer clues about who he was in touch with before he was charged one year later with soliciting prostitution, and roughly 14 years before he was indicted for child sex trafficking.

The pads were collected during the execution of a search warrant. They were found both inside the residence and in Epstein’s trash, according to court records filed in an Epstein-related case. Multiple witnesses have said that the collected messages accurately reflect those taken by various staff at the Palm Beach mansion, the court records say.

He left messages for Epstein 16 times in three months, the message pads suggest.

The police also seized a smaller batch of pads from 2002 and 2003, in which there is no record of calls from Copperfield.

The first dated message to Epstein from Copperfield in the pads, on 21 November 2004, simply reads: “it’s important”.

Some of the messages appear to suggest a familiarity between Copperfield and Epstein. On the evening of 9 December at 7.05pm, the message pads record, the illusionist left a message that he’d “just called to say hello”. Ten days later they record he left another message saying the same thing.

Another reads: “Magic David called.”

On 9 January 2005, Epstein had one message from Copperfield and another from one of Copperfield’s assistants, who appears to be arranging a time for Epstein to see one of the magician’s shows.

“The 28th will be the best day to come and see show,” it reads. “The show starts at 8.30.” Copperfield was in Florida on tour at the time and performing at the Carol Morsani Hall in Tampa on this night, according to records. The following morning Copperfield calls again. “He is just checking you can reach him at home,” the note said.

He was not the only one leaving messages.

The model agent Jean-Luc Brunel – who hanged himself in jail in 2022 while being investigated for sex crimes – also called regularly during this period. Donald Trump, the former US president who has said he had a falling out with Epstein, disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein and American banker Jes Staley also left messages for Epstein around this time. Staley, the former chief executive of Barclays, was fined $2.26m (£1.8m) by the UK Financial Conduct Authority last year and banned from holding senior positions in the UK after it was determined that he had mischaracterized the “nature of his relationship” with Epstein. In a statement at the time, Staley – who has denied having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes – said he was disappointed by the FCA’s decision and would challenge it.

In the weeks leading up to the show on the 28th, the message pads indicate, Copperfield left more messages for Epstein.

In one, the message read: “he has some info”, and six days before the show: “it’s jackpot”. In another, Copperfield asked Epstein to call him back. In yet another, Copperfield said he could be reached at home.

Along with denying that Copperfield left multiple messages for Epstein, the magician’s lawyers said he “never” called Epstein personally.

When the Guardian pressed Copperfield’s lawyers on this issue – noting that Copperfield’s direct phone number appears to be on the messages – his lawyers declined to comment.

Copperfield’s lawyers said he and Epstein were “at most, acquaintances” who only met on a “handful” of occasions. Copperfield believed, they said, that he only attended Epstein’s Florida mansion once, for around 15 minutes. They said he also visited Epstein’s New York home.

Alfredo Rodriguez, who was Epstein’s housekeeper at his Palm Beach mansion between September 2004 and February or March 2005, testified in a videotaped deposition in 2009 that Copperfield was in the house “maybe two or three times” when he was present. He said Copperfield “came to the house, played tricks” and then left.

Copperfield’s lawyers said Rodriguez “lacks any credibility”. Rodriguez, who died in 2015, was convicted in 2012 of an obstruction charge for failing to tell prosecutors that he was in possession of Epstein’s phonebook – commonly referred to as his “black book” – and for trying to sell it.

‘Clearly a close friend’

One of the questions that has been raised by Copperfield’s apparent contacts with Epstein is what the exact nature of their relationship was.

Five people, including Epstein himself, have said they believed the two men were friends. The Guardian has no evidence that Copperfield and Epstein had contact after 2005.

In the videotaped deposition of Epstein conducted by the lawyer Jack Scarola in March 2010, Epstein was asked if he had a “social relationship” with Copperfield. Epstein responded that he believed that by raising “the names of friends of mine”, Scarola was seeking to stress his relationships and “imperil my business relationships”. He added: “I’m going to say, yes, I do know Mr Copperfield”.

Copperfield’s lawyers said any suggestion he was friends with Epstein “is totally false and a mischaracterization made by the media.” They added that it is “well-documented, Epstein ‘collected’ the rich and the famous”.

McCawley, the victims’ rights attorney at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, said “Consider that in just one, single trash-pull and search by police of just one of Epstein’s properties, message pads from a short period showed Copperfield called Epstein multiple times.”

Spencer Kuvin, a Florida lawyer at Goldlaw who has also represented Epstein victims, said: “Because Copperfield appears to have been within Epstein’s social orbit during that time frame, he should definitely be coming forward to give more information.”

Brad Edwards, an attorney who once represented Sjoberg and multiple other Epstein victims, said in his book, Relentless Pursuit, that Copperfield was “clearly a close friend” of Epstein’s, according to unnamed witnesses he had interviewed.

Edwards, who has claimed that he tried to depose Copperfield as part of his investigations of Epstein but was not able to due to “legal and logistical roadblocks”, also alleged in a legal filing in April 2011 that Copperfield had an improper interaction with one Epstein victim, but did not provide any details or substantiate the claim. Copperfield’s lawyers declined to comment on this allegation.

Edwards declined to elaborate on the claim, saying in a Whatsapp message to a reporter that he was not in a position to assist the Guardian.

Public records show that one Epstein victim who said she was a teenager at the time of her abuse told detectives as part of a 2005 police investigation that Copperfield tickets were among the gifts that Epstein gave her during the time he was sexually abusing her in the early to mid-2000s.

“I got show tickets. I went and saw like David Copperfield, I had VIP tickets or something like that,” she said.

‘It did make me feel safe’

The same year that Sjoberg attended a dinner with the two men, another Epstein victim says she also spent time in their company. This time it was on Copperfield’s turf, in Las Vegas.

Jane Doe 15, who is one of more than 100 Epstein victims to have reached a settlement with Epstein’s estate in 2021, was 15 years old when she was abused by him.

She described in an interview with the Guardian how she was flown from her home town in Michigan to Las Vegas in early 2004 in order to meet the financier for the first time.

On her arrival at the airport, she says she was picked up by someone working for Epstein and taken straight to David Copperfield’s “warehouse”.

When she arrived she joined a group of other young women who had also been flown to Las Vegas for the occasion, to meet Epstein and Copperfield. She said she believed Epstein and the other girls had just seen the magician’s show at the MGM Grand – where he still performs today – but she had only arrived in time to “hang out with David and take a look at all his oddities that he kept in the back warehouse space”.

“I was just a kid so I was like ‘oh wow, magic, cool’,” Jane Doe 15 told the Guardian. There was a cardboard cutout of Copperfield that she posed with “so it looked like he was levitating you,” she recalled.

She kept a polaroid of this, which she shared with the Guardian. “I could not wait to tell my friends about this.”

Lawyers for Copperfield acknowledged he had given a tour to Epstein “and his guests” but said the tour he gave was at his museum and that he and Epstein were accompanied by 10 members of his staff. The lawyers said the tour took place before Epstein’s crimes were exposed and that Copperfield did not see or suspect anything inappropriate during the visit.

Jane Doe 15, who grew up living in a small farming town and loved to read Narnia books, was impressed by Copperfield. She described the “vibe” at Copperfield’s warehouse as “teen friendly”. She said, “I was being taken to … meet this magician …I’m being wowed and my defenses are going down.”

“There’s a safety in it … it felt very like an admittance that I was young and would be into this sort of thing.”

After the meeting, Jane Doe 15 claimed she was taken on Epstein’s private plane – which later became known among the press as the “Lolita Express” – with the other young women to Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico. It was there, just days later, that Epstein subjected her to a “vicious, prolonged sexual assault”, according to the lawsuit she filed against Epstein’s estate in 2019.

Meeting Copperfield “did make me feel safe,” she said. Jane Doe 15 did not allege Copperfield ever acted inappropriately with her.

“In my experience with Epstein there was so much of him fronting or showing off these celebrity associations, one of them being David Copperfield,” she said. “When he felt you could be getting nervous, he would bring up a celebrity association.”

More than 55% of sperm samples from a French infertility clinic contained high levels of glyphosate, the world’s most common weedkiller, raising further questions about the chemical’s impact on reproductive health and overall safety, a new study found.

The new research also found evidence of impacts on DNA and a correlation between glyphosate levels and oxidative stress on seminal plasma, suggesting significant impacts on fertility and reproductive health.

“Taken together, our results suggest a negative impact of glyphosate on human reproductive health and possibly on progeny,” the authors wrote.

The paper comes as researchers look for answers to why global fertility rates are dropping, and many suspect exposure to toxic chemicals like glyphosate is a significant driver of the decline.

Glyphosate is used on a wide range of food crops and in residential settings in the US. The most popular glyphosate-based product is Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, which has been at the center of legal and regulatory battles in recent years. US government research from 2023 found genotoxicity in farmers with high levels of the herbicide in their blood, suggesting an association between it and cancer.

In December, a group of top US public health advocacy groups petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the product, though its defenders have said there is no definitive proof of its toxicity to humans. Still, dozens of countries have banned or restricted its use.

The levels French researchers found in sperm were four times higher than in the men’s blood, which the authors wrote is the first time the comparison had been made. They called the finding “worrying”, and it suggests the chemical is particularly dangerous for reproductive systems.

Oxidative stress “is considered to be one of the most important factors in male fertility by regulating the vitality and functionality of mammalian spermatozoa”, the authors wrote, and they found a “significant positive correlation” between stress and glyphosate levels.

Agricultural workers recorded the highest glyphosate levels, and 96% of farmers included in the study had at least some. A landscaper also showed among the highest levels, and smokers typically had elevated levels much higher than those who did not smoke. Eating organic produce did not have a clear impact on levels.

The study’s authors wrote it “would be wise for regulators to apply a precautionary principle” in regulation, which means erring on the side of caution to protect human health until further research can be done to confirm the problems identified in the study.

New rules intended to reduce the use of antibiotics in farming in the UK have been criticised as too lax and weaker than their equivalent under EU laws.

The updated regulations come into force on Friday. They ban the routine use of antibiotics on farm animals, and specifically their use to “compensate for poor hygiene, inadequate animal husbandry, or poor farm management practices”.

Experts, however, say there are loopholes in the legislation that are closed off under EU laws in place since 2022, and by which the UK would be bound if it were still a member state.

Ministers repeatedly promised, before and after Brexit, that farming and food standards in the UK would not be watered down after leaving the EU. The Guardian, however, has revealed numerous examples of environmental rules that have been weakened, from regulations on air pollution and water quality to pesticide use and agricultural emissions.

This latest divergence is of particular concern because the overuse of antibiotics in farming has dire consequences for human health. The UK’s former chief medical officer Sally Davies said in an interview with the Guardian earlier this week that antibiotic overuse was leading to the rise of near-invincible superbugs that pose a severe threat to human health, making previously minor ailments deadly and threatening to make routine operations unsafe.

About two-thirds of antibiotics globally are used on farm animals, and they are often used indiscriminately either to promote growth or to try to prevent infections that arise from overcrowding, poor management and insanitary conditions on factory farms.

The EU has taken strong steps to clamp down on overuse on its farms. Prof Roberto La Ragione, the head of the school of biosciences at the University of Surrey and a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, said preventing overuse was of vital importance.

“Antibiotics are critical to human and animal medicine, but the emergence of resistance is a global concern,” he said. “Therefore we must reduce their use to help stop the emergence and spread of resistance.

“We know that animal health and welfare are inextricably linked with our own, so it is vital that antibiotic resistance is tackled in humans and animals, and we can all play a part, from the scientific community to pet owners, vets, doctors, pharmacists, companies, farmers and the government.”

Under the new rules, it will still be possible to feed antibiotics prophylactically to large groups of animals, a practice campaigners say is effectively the same as, and just as dangerous as, routine use. The guidelines say this prophylaxis should only be “in exceptional circumstances”, but questions in parliament by the shadow minister Daniel Zeichner elicited a response from the farming minister Mark Spencer that this would include “where there would be a risk of infection or severe consequences if antibiotics were not applied”.

Coílín Nunan, a scientist adviser at the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, said this meant widespread prophylactic use on large groups of animals would still occur frequently, because when animals are kept in highly intensive conditions there is often significant risk of infection.

EU rules ban antibiotics for group prophylaxis, which is limited to an individual animal only.

Nunan said: “Unfortunately the government has deliberately weakened the legislation in comparison to the EU, and this will allow some poorly run farms to keep on feeding large groups of animals antibiotics, even when no disease is present.

“We are also concerned the ban on using antibiotics to compensate for inadequate animal husbandry and poor farm management practices may not be properly implemented.”

The Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics wants the government to ban group prophylaxis, introduce mandatory data collection from farms on their use of antibiotics, set tougher targets for the reduction of farm antibiotic use and improve animal welfare and husbandry standards.

UK farming and veterinary oversight continue to be in turmoil after Brexit. There is a shortage of vets, and higher workloads as a result of the changes to animal certification and increased bureaucracy related to animal exports and imports.

A spokesperson for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate said: “We do not support the routine use of antibiotics, including where antibiotics are used to compensate for inadequate farming practices. However, a blanket ban of prophylaxis could be harmful to animal health and welfare, while also increasing the risk of diseases spreading.”

The Environmental Defenders Office did not breach the conditions of its $8.2m in federal funding, according to a government review of the legal firm’s conduct.

The environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, requested the review after a federal court judgment in January made sharp criticisms of the EDO’s conduct in a legal matter against Santos.

The case, brought by Tiwi Island traditional owners, argued Santos had not properly assessed submerged cultural heritage near an area it proposed to construct a pipeline for its Barossa offshore gas project off the Northern Territory.

The traditional owners sought an injunction on pipeline works until the gas company submitted a new environmental plan and it was assessed by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (Nopsema).

The case was dismissed in January and the judgment by Justice Natalie Charlesworth made adverse findings against the EDO that one of its lawyers and a cultural heritage consultant engaged in a form of “subtle coaching” in a meeting with Tiwi islanders. Charlesworth also found that evidence from one expert witness involved “confection”.

After the judgment, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, vowed to defund the EDO if the Coalition won the next election.

The former prime minister Tony Abbott cut the EDO’s funding in 2013, ending 20 years of commonwealth funding for the public interest law firm. The funding was restored by the Albanese government.

Plibersek’s department sought independent legal advice on whether the conduct described in Charlesworth’s judgment breached the EDO’s grant conditions.

The business grants hub within the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, which administers the grant agreement, also assessed whether any possible fraud had occurred in relation to the grant agreement.

“The legal advice was that the comments in the judgment do not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the EDO had breached the terms of the grant agreement,” the final report states.

The business grants hub also found the EDO “has been compliant with the grant conditions to date” and there was no evidence indicating possible fraud.

The report says, based on this advice, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water had concluded the EDO was not in breach of its agreement.

But the department did find further steps should be taken and said it was working with the business grants hub to implement “additional assurances” in relation to the grant agreement and to negotiate some variations to “expressly clarify the standards expected by the Commonwealth of the EDO”.

The EDO chief executive, David Morris, welcomed the review’s findings.

“We are proud to deliver high-quality legal services under the terms of the federal government’s grant agreement, and to represent those seeking to exercise their right and to protect nature and the climate,” he said.

“Without federal support, many Australians would be unable to access the legal system or participate fully in environmental decision making.”