Serbian government jet carrying Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic has landed in the Netherlands, where he will be tried by a UN court for genocide.

The plane touched down at Rotterdam airport hours after judges in Belgrade rejected his appeal to delay his extradition on grounds of ill health, and Serbian justice minister Snezana Malovic authorised his handover to UN officials in The Hague.

Mladic was arrested last Thursday in a village north of Belgrade after 16 years on the run.

Advertisement >>

His defence had argued the 69-year-old is not mentally and physically fit to stand trial.

Mladic is charged at the tribunal for atrocities committed by his Serb troops during Bosnia's 1992/95 war.

They include the notorious Srebrenica massacre that left 8,000 Muslim men and boys dead - the worst atrocity against civilians in Europe since the Second World War.

Earlier Mladic was briefly released from the jail cell, travelling in a secret high-security convoy to a suburban cemetery where he left a lone candle for his daughter who killed herself during Bosnia's bloody ethnic war.

Mladic - accused of some of the worst horrors of the 1992/95 war - was accompanied by a convoy of several armoured vehicles on a swift and quiet trip.

At the black marble grave, Mladic left a lit candle and a small white bouquet of flowers with a red rose in the middle.

His 23-year-old daughter Ana, a medical student, committed suicide in 1994 with her father's pistol.

She reportedly never wrote a suicide note, but media reports at the time said she ended her life at Mladic's Belgrade family house because of depression caused by her father's role in the war.

Mladic has rejected the official investigation into his case and claimed she was killed by his wartime enemies, saying the pistol was found in her left hand, although she was right-handed.

In addition to the appeal, defence lawyer Milos Saljic asked for a team of doctors to examine Mladic, who is said to have suffered at least two strokes.

Yesterday Serbian president Boris Tadic rejected speculation that authorities had known of Mladic's hiding place and delayed his arrest to coincide with a visit by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

The rumours have persisted because Mladic was found living not far from the capital, Belgrade, with relatives who share his last name.

"Any such comment makes no sense," Mr Tadic said. "The truth is that we arrested Ratko Mladic the moment we discovered him."

The president also said it was time for the European Union to do its part by boosting his nation's efforts to join the bloc, arguing that the arrest of Mladic proves it is serious about rejoining the international fold.

"I simply ask the EU to fulfil its part," he said. "We fulfilled our part and we will continue to do so."

The EU had repeatedly said that Serbia could begin pre-membership talks only after it arrested Mladic. Some EU nations have already said Serbia needs to do more, including arresting its last fugitive, Goran Hadzic, who led Croatian Serb rebels during the 1991/95 war.

Mr Tadic said Hadzic will be arrested as soon as possible.

The plane carrying Mladic pulled into a hangar after landing in Rotterdam, out of view of reporters and television cameras.

A Dutch police helicopter stood just outside the hangar's entrance, and police vehicles also pulled up nearby.

Mladic will be taken to the UN detention unit near The Hague to undergo a formal identification process. Within a few days he will be brought before a UN judge for a preliminary hearing.

Read More

Russian court upholds Khodorkovsky conviction

Russian appeals court upheld a multibillion-dollar theft and money laundering conviction against jailed former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky on Tuesday and reduced his 14-year prison sentence to 13 years.

The Moscow City Court ruling means former Yukos chief Khodorkovsky, who fell foul of the Kremlin during Vladimir Putin's presidency and has been jailed since 2003, is to remain in prison well into 2016.

 

Read More

former Labour minister was jailed for 16 months on Friday after admitting dishonestly claiming 30,000 pounds of parliamentary expenses

former Labour minister was jailed for 16 months on Friday after admitting dishonestly claiming 30,000 pounds of parliamentary expenses for mortgage repayments, including for a loan that had already been paid off.

Elliot Morley, who was fisheries and later environment minster between 1997 and 2006, was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court in London after pleading guilty to two charges of false accounting at a hearing last month.

He had claimed 800 pounds a month for 3-1/2 years for interest payments on a mortgage on his home in Winterton, Lincolnshire.

But the interest payments were actually far lower, varying between five and 50 pounds a month. When the mortgage was redeemed in February 2006 Morley continued to submit his 800 pound monthly claims, an act the judge, Mr Justice Saunders, described as "blatant dishonesty."

"When it was discovered, Mr Morley's answers to the inquiries that were made were lies," Saunders said.

Morley had blamed "sloppy accounting" when the claims, totalling more than 30,000 pounds, were first revealed.

Saunders said the case was tragic for Morley, who he said had enjoyed a distinguished political career and had been a "positive force for good" in the community.

"He has thrown away his good name and good character," Saunders said.

The Labour party said it had already suspended Morley from membership and following his jailing was expelling him.

Morley is the first former minister jailed over an expenses scandal that rocked parliament and angered the public.

Three other former Labour MPs have already been jailed over their expenses claims.

John Taylor, a former Conservative member of the House of Lords, is awaiting sentencing after being found guilty in January of false claims for overnight travel and subsistence.

Read More

Media organisations should be told in advance about applications for gagging orders against them, one of Britain's top judges recommended

Media organisations should be told in advance about applications for gagging orders against them, one of Britain's top judges recommended on Friday, amid growing tensions over media freedom and the right to privacy.

Media groups and politicians have expressed concern about a perceived rise in gagging orders, which they fear could be being used to quash information of genuine public interest rather than as a legitimate tool to protect someone's privacy.

"Where privacy and confidentiality are involved, a degree of secrecy is often necessary to do justice," David Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, told a briefing.

"But where secrecy is ordered it should only be to the extent strictly necessary to achieve the interests of justice."

The use of injunctions, especially super injunctions, has come into sharp focus after politicians used the right to speak freely in parliament to expose an order bought by former bank chief Fred Goodwin, and after messaging site Twitter published names of celebrities it said had brought injunctions.

Super injunctions have prompted most criticism because they prevent anyone from reporting even the existence of the order.

Former RBS chief Goodwin attracted criticism for bringing such an injunction, whose existence was revealed by a politicians using the right of parliamentary privilege, which protects comments made in parliament.

A court relaxed that order on Thursday.

PRIVACY LAW

The Neuberger review did not deal with whether Britain needed an explicit privacy law, which is a question for parliament. Prime Minister David Cameron has said previously he was "a little uneasy" about the way injunctions were being used.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke welcomed the report.

" contains important recommendations which will ensure that injunctions are only granted where strictly necessary," he said in a statement. "The government is considering the wider issues around privacy and freedom of expression."

Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge told a briefing he believed it would be tough for parliament to tackle the issue, saying that the question of a privacy law had come up repeatedly as a question for lawmakers but they had never legislated for it.

He also questioned whether politicians were abusing parliamentary privilege.

"It is, of course, wonderful for you if a Member of Parliament stands up in parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.

"But you do need to think ... whether it's a very good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which parliament has created."

Read More

Court injunctions banning the media from reporting that the rich and famous have won gagging orders should only be granted where strictly necessary

Court injunctions banning the media from reporting that the rich and famous have won gagging orders should only be granted where strictly necessary, a long-awaited judicial report said on Friday.
Newspapers and broadcasters who may be silenced by such bans should also be informed beforehand, according to senior judge David Neuberger.
But in a note of warning, he urged MPs opposed to injunctions to think twice before using their centuries-old right of unrestricted freedom of speech in parliament to undermine them.
Neuberger began an inquiry last year after a row over a super-injunction granted to married England football captain John Terry to stop the media publicising his affair with a teammate's ex-girlfriend.
Super-injunctions ban the publication of details of the case in question and any mention of the ban itself, and their increasing use has sparked concern that the principles of press freedom and open justice were being undermined.
The report revealed that only two super-injunctions had been issued in the past year, but said there had been number of anonymised injunctions, where media can report the existence of the ban but not the person who brought it.
It stressed the importance of conducting justice in the open and said judges should depart from this only where "strictly necessary", and then injunctions should be short-term and kept under review by the court.
It recommended the media be alerted in advance about applications for injunctions, subject to a confidentiality agreement.
"Where privacy and confidentiality are involved, a degree of secrecy is often necessary to do justice," Neuberger, known as the Master of the Rolls, told a press conference in London.
"However, where secrecy is ordered it should only be to the extent strictly necessary to achieve the interests of justice."
Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, Britain's top judge, acknowledged that injunctions are often ignored by bloggers or users of social networks such as Twitter, and there is little that the authorities can do to stop them.
He said the Internet offered "by no means the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers", which are more trusted.
But he added: "I'm not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through technology may not one day be brought under control."
The judges meanwhile issued a warning to MPs who have used their right to free speech, known as parliamentary privilege, to deliberately undermine injunctions.
On Thursday, a member of the House of Lords revealed that Fred Goodwin, the former boss of the bailed-out Royal Bank of Scotland, had won an injunction banning publication of details of an alleged affair with a colleague.
Goodwin's name had already been revealed in March by a member of the House of Commons, and the High Court subsequently quashed the anonymity order that had been protecting him.
Judge questioned "whether it's a good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or they disagree with the privacy law created by parliament."
Prime Minister David Cameron said last month he felt "uneasy" about the creeping use of injunctions to gag the media, echoing the concerns of many MPs.
However, Judge said they were only a reflection of the 1998 Human Rights Act, which enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights and created a British privacy law for the first time.
Cameron's spokesman said the report was "very useful" and would be considered "very carefully".
In a note of caution to the media, the report warned that journalists' right to repeat parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action may be undermined if the information concerned aimed to frustrate a court order.

Read More

Top judge attacks MPs who reveal injunctions

The Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge questioned whether it was a good idea for MPs and Lords to be "flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which Parliament has created".
His comments, which will be seen by critics as an attempt to censor parliamentary proceedings, came at a launch of a major review of injunctions which found that reports of comments made by MPs and peers which set out to contravene court orders may be in contempt of court.
Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls and the senior judge who chaired the inquiry, said the law surrounding the issue was "astonishingly unclear" which was "very unsatisfactory".
It comes after Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming recently highlighted two cases in Parliament.
He asked in the House of Commons about an order obtained by former Royal Bank of Scotland chief Sir Fred Goodwin, which banned the media from calling him a banker, and about another order which banned a constituent from talking to his MP.

A gagging order obtained by Sir Fred was partially lifted by the High Court yesterday after allegations that he had an affair were made public by a Liberal Democrat peer in the House of Lords.
The move, which was not opposed by Sir Fred, came after Lord Stoneham of Droxford used parliamentary privilege to name him in relation to the alleged affair in the Lords.
Addressing the media at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London today, Lord Judge said: "It is, of course, wonderful for you if a Member of Parliament stands up in Parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.
"But you do need to think, do you not, whether it's a very good idea for our law makers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which Parliament has created.
"It's a very serious issue in my view.
"There has never been any question, in any of these orders, not in any single one of them, of the court challenging the sovereignty of parliament.
"That's not the issue.
"We are following the law, as best we understand it, at the level of the judiciary where the issues have been canvassed.
"Our constitutional arrangement have been based for centuries on mutual respect."
He added that senior judges would be holding talks with the speakers of the Commons and the Lords over the issue.
Lord Judge went on: "No-one, and in particular no judge, doubts that the open administrations of justice is a long-standing, treasured principle of our legal system".
While no right to privacy existed before 2000, the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights "was indeed clearly explained to Parliament before the Human Rights Act was enacted", he said.
"Contrary to some commentary, unelected judges in this country did not create privacy rights.
"They were created by Parliament.
"Now that they have been created, judges in this country cannot ignore or dispense with them: they must apply the law relating to privacy matters as created by Parliament."
Parliament has said while court cases should not be prejudiced by discussions in parliament it has a "constitutional right to discuss any matter it pleases", Lord Judge said.
"With respect, I entirely agree with it."
But he said he would never say that "Parliament needs to get a grip on this".
"It will take quite an effort for Parliament to get a grip on this," he said.

 

Read More