Pages

Lawyers & Lawcourts Headline

Lawyers & Lawcourts

Sunday, 19 June 2011

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has been told to pay more than £1,000 to his former landlord, following a county court ruling.



Paul Sampson, 48, succeeded in parts of a legal battle against the former Cabinet Minister over a dispute surrounding offices the Labour MP had rented in Normanton, West Yorkshire.

The dispute centred around four offices the MP rented from Mr Sampson for £80 a week from June 2005 until July 2010.

After he left them last summer, Mr Sampson claimed that there were a number of issues regarding the property and initially sought a total payment of almost £2,000 to cover the costs.

Mr Balls eventually conceded three issues before the case was heard at Leeds County Court yesterday, agreeing to pay a total of £830 for the redecoration of the property, the removal of rubbish and also the removal of furniture left behind.

The MP, who did not attend the hearing, was also ordered to pay £265 towards Mr Sampson’s legal costs.

Mr Balls won his battle against the disputed claims of rent owed to Mr Sampson, paying for a replacement burglar alarm after he had taken one with him and the replacement of a stained carpet.

Mr Sampson claimed he had agreed a five per cent increase in rent with Mr Balls with a gentleman’s handshake, the court heard.

He said he was subsequently owed over £300 as a result, but District Judge John Flanagan turned down his claim, saying there was no memorandum to prove this agreement.

Mr Sampson also asked for £306 to replace a carpet which he claimed had been damaged beyond repair in the space of two areas.

The judge again refused his claim, saying he could have put a point in the tenancy agreement about the maintenance of the carpet but had failed to do so.

Finally, Mr Sampson asked for the replacement of a sophisticated burglar alarm. Nicholas Toms, representing Mr Balls, said that there was no burglar alarm when the MP took over the office and he had to install a new one.

He had to apply to the House of Commons to cover the cost and subsequently took the alarm with him when he moved to his new office in Morley, near Leeds.

Mr Sampson claimed there had been an alarm when Mr Balls moved in and that he should pay to replace it.

The district judge again found in Mr Balls’s favour, saying the evidence suggested there was not an alarm when he had taken over the premises




Monday, 13 June 2011

Juror faces charges after contacting defendant on Facebook

A MEMBER OF A JURY in a drugs trial allegedly contacted a defendant through Facebook and is now facing contempt of court charges.
Joanne Fraill from Blackley in Manchester sat on the jury of a major drug dealing trial that had run for 10 weeks and cost upwards of £6m, but the case has been aborted after allegations of juror misconduct.
Fraill is accused of using Facebook to contact one of the defendants in the case, Jamie Sewart, who allegedly asked her to provide information on the jury's ongoing deliberations.
It's not clear how the two came into contact, but presumably Fraill searched for Sewart on Facebook and added her as a friend. We do not yet know the motivations for this contact, but even if it was intended in an innocent manner it throws the entire case into jeopardy.
Both Fraill and Sewart will be brought before Attorney General Dominic Grieve in the High Court in London on Tuesday, where the case against them will be heard by the Lord Chief Justice, Igor Judge.
The case raises questions about what kinds of communications access juries should have. Juries are usually commanded not to discuss the case with anyone outside the courtroom, while in some cases they are sequestered in hotels to prevent them from talking with family and friends.
Social networking, which can be accessed from smartphones and other portable devices, is a new challenge for the courts, but the Administrative Offices of the US Courts issued guidance in February 2010 that jurors should not use websites like Facebook and Twitter.
Members of the press and public in the UK were allowed to send tweets after Lord Judge approved the use of Twitter in the courtroom last December, providing it did not interfere with the case. He might reconsider this decision after this latest court disaster.
Another of the defendants in the case, Gary Knox, who was previously convicted for dealing drugs, is using the revelation to apply for a mistrial on the basis of the juror's inappropriate behaviour, according to The Times.
If Knox and the other defendants manage to get off on the basis of this juror's actions then Fraill could face heavy sanctions. It's likely, however, that the entire jury will be dismissed and the case will be retried with a new jury and tighter rules over what they can and cannot do.
With the cost of this prosecution already in the millions, this case could become even more expensive.

 

The fate of six West Indian prisoners on death row will be decided through the adjudication of the privy council this summer amid fresh pressure from the Caribbean to limit the UK's role in determining capital punishment cases

.

In July, senior British lawyers will fly to St Kitts and Nevis to represent, in local courts, four islanders who have been condemned to hang after being convicted of murdering a key witness in a gangland trial.

The lives of Romeo Cannonier, Louis Gardener, Sheldon Isaac and Ruedeney Williams were saved in 2009 when judges on the judicial committee of the privy council sitting in Westminster granted them a temporary stay of execution – known formally as a "conservatory order". One of the men, Sheldon Isaac, has suffered brain damage from a gunshot. Their appeals could yet return to London.

Next month, the JCPC will hear the case listed as Ernest Lockhart v the Queen. Lockhart faces the rope in the Bahamas; he was found guilty of a fatal shooting on the evidence of a co-defendant.

At the end of the summer, the same court will consider evidence against Marcus Daniel, who has been condemned to death for the murder of a young woman in Trinidad. Doubts have been raised about his mental health and whether he suffers from a severe personality disorder.

A decade after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was set up to act as a supreme court for the region, supposedly replacing the JCPC, death penalty cases and other complex appeals are still being sent to London for adjudication. Only three states – Belize, Barbados and Guyana – have signed up to the CCJ; even Trinidad, where the court is situated, is not a member.

No one expected the historical anomaly of British supreme court justices ruling on such high profile and politically sensitive Caribbean cases to persist for so long. Even the UK judges appear to resent the additional judicial workload.

Reviled by critics in the Caribbean as an obstructive hangover of colonial rule, the work of the JCPC has, however, become increasingly influential around the world. Campaigners against the death penalty claim its jurisprudence has helped to reprieve almost 5,000 prisoners from death row in African states.

The farthest-reaching decision approved by the Privy Council came in a judgment that outlawed mandatory death sentences for murder on the grounds of their being unconstitutional.

That ruling has now been adopted by Kenya, Uganda and Malawi. "Death sentences on 900 people in Uganda were commuted; another 4,000 were taken off death row in Kenya last year and about 40 in Malawi - all as a result of those countries adopting privy council precedents," explained Saul Lehrfreund of the London-based Death Penalty Project, which represents most of the applicants who come before the privy council.

The latest influx of capital punishment cases comes as pressure grows for more hangings in the Caribbean. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, has extolled the death penalty as "a weapon in [our] arsenal" to fight the murder rate.

Her government introduced a bill to alter the constitution and sidestep restrictions imposed by the privy council, particularly a 1994 ruling that bans executions not carried out within five years from the date of sentence.

"[The legislation] simply seeks to plug some of the loopholes that have been exploited and manipulated by murderers who have been properly convicted and sentenced to death according to law," Persad-Bissessar said earlier this year. The bill was defeated but the issue remains live.

Trinidad and Tobago's top judge, chief justice,Mr Justice Ivor Archie, commented (pdf) last year: "It takes at least three trips to the privy council and the expenditure of enormous time, financial and other resources to facilitate an execution." The country has more than 40 inmates on death row, but its last hanging was in 1999.

Saul Lehrfreund and Parvais Jabbar, who run the Death Penalty Project out of the Soho offices of the solicitors Simons Muirhead and Burton, remain unconvinced.

"If [Caribbean countries] made as much effort to try to improve the standard of policing and standard of forensics, that would significantly reduce the crime rate," they said.

"The problem is that the real solution costs too much and won't be done in four years. No one is interested in long-term solutions. Executing a few people is considered [to be] the answer.

"The people are more sophisticated that the politicians. They don't believe the death penalty will have an impact on the crime rate, [though] they may believe [that murderers] need to be killed as retribution."

Most of the British lawyers involved in death row cases work on a pro bono or voluntary basis. Lehrfreund and Jabbar will be joined by Edward Fitzgerald QC and Julian Knowles QC when they go out to St Kitts in July.

The tiny island was the scene of the last execution in the Caribbean in December 2008. Charles Laplace, who was sentenced to death for killing his wife, had not been informed of his right to appeal and was said to hav been suffering from a serious mental imbalance.

In praise of the privy council, Fitzgerald told students at Sussex University last month: "It has outlawed executions after delay; introduced judicial review and natural justice at the mercy stage; struck down the mandatory imposition of the death sentence for murder as unconstitutional; and introduced a new, restrictive approach to the imposition of the death penalty in murder cases."

Appeals from West Indian colonies to the privy council were first heard in 17th century. In a more recent tradition, each country's flag is now raised inside the JCPC courtroom opposite parliament when cases are considered.

In the 1920s, at the height of the British Empire, it was said that people living on a quarter of the world's land could technically bring their appeals to the privy council. There are still 27 jurisdictions outside the UK for which the privy council is the final court of appeal. They include the Channel Islands, British overseas territories such as the Falklands and Gibraltar, and former colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific.

Several Caribbean states have recently tried to quit this relationship. Jamaica and St Vincent both signalled their intent to join the CCJ. Jamaica's attempt was struck down as unconstitutional on the grounds that it required a referendum for approval; in St Vincent a referendum was held but lost. "This may indicate that people don't necessarily trust their politicians and may feel that the JCPC gives an added level of protection," Lehrfreund comments. (The CCJ has been more successful in its functions as an international tribunal, resolving disputes between Caricom nations.)

The outgoing president of the court, Michael de la Bastide, whose tenure comes to an end in August has expressed disappointment that more countries have not signed up to the CCJ. In March this year, he said it would be a "regional catastrophe" if the court was allowed to fail. "The region continues to be beholden to a foreign government for its final court of appeal and, in so doing, is failing to take full responsibility for its legal process."

Two years ago Lord Justice Phillips, the first president of the UK's supreme court, questioned whether some privy council cases needed to be heard by a panel of five justices, as Caribbean cases were taking up a lot of time. He supported the idea of Commonwealth countries establishing their own final courts of appeal.

Mr Justice Archie of Trinidad and Tobago has claimed that "less importance" is given to appeals from the islands. "If you will pardon the cricketing analogy, it looks as though the test side is not necessary to deal with us any more so they could send the 'B' team," he said.

"Do we have to await the final humiliation of being asked to leave? ... After 48 years of supposed independence, it astonishes me that there is even a debate about whether the the CCJ should be our final appellate court.

Asked about its role, a JCPC official said: "The judicial committee of the privy council does not lobby or encourage countries to join or leave its jurisdiction. It is the government's policy to continue to make this service available, and a number of Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries countries have long appreciated the service that some of the UK's most senior judges have offered in providing their final court of appeal. Those judges sit as part of their duties as privy counsellors, and as part of their wider judicial commitment to upholding common law principles."

On its website, the CCJ has a series of frequently asked questions. One inquires about the role of its rival, the privy council in London. Its answer includes the statement: "Persons interpreting and applying the law should be attuned to the relevant dynamics of social interaction, which determine the quality and intensity of human intercourse, and the values conditioning such dynamics… In short, the decisions may tend not to reflect the needs of the society, because the people applying the law would not understand the society."

Disagreements with states that have the death penalty have become politically more pronounced since the UK government made opposition to capital punishment more of an international policy priority. "Abolition of the death penalty is an area that the government is keen to emphasise and put at the forefront of its human rights agenda," Jeremy Browne, the Foreign Office minister and Liberal Democrat MP, declared in January, shortly after visiting Trinidad.

Saturday, 11 June 2011

Experts are warning that the UK tax authority is more inclined to prosecute evaders as figures show millions of pounds of unpaid tax has been recouped.


Follow-up enquiries have added millions to the collections made following high-profile disclosure campaigns.

Criminal investigations have been launched into 10 people with offshore accounts and six in medical trades.

Maximum fines for tax evaders have recently increased, but can be reduced for those who come forward voluntarily.

"Criminal investigations have not been the weapons of choice for HM Revenue and Customs, but now they are part of the armoury," said Gary Ashford, representative for the Chartered Institute of Taxation.

Campaigns
Tax evaders include "chip shop owners, taxi drivers and landladies", HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has said. It has been set targets by the government to harvest unpaid tax.

The original campaign aimed at evaders with offshore accounts was launched in 2007 and gathered £400m after 45,000 came forward.

Subsequent inquiries have brought in another £91m and 1,000 enquiries are continuing, the BBC has been told.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

This is proof of HMRC's determination to increase the number of prosecutions we take forward in all areas”

Chris Harrison
HMRC
A second campaign was launched in September 2009. This garnered £85m from 5,500 disclosures. Follow-up inquiries yielded another £6m.

Ten criminal investigations are ongoing, although these will not necessarily lead to prosecutions.

New penalties were introduced in April which raised the maximum fine level for those with offshore accounts to 200% of unpaid tax, in addition to the repaying the tax owed.

Mr Ashford said HMRC was taking a "very tough line" against these evaders.

Medics
The tax authority has also threatened to publish the names of people who deliberately evaded tax.

This could have serious implications for those in medical professions who were uncovered as part of a campaign by HMRC targeting that sector, according to Mr Ashford.

Some £10m has been gathered from 1,500 disclosures during the campaign. Six criminal investigations have been launched.

Medical professionals who admitted unpaid tax before 30 June could pay past tax, plus interest, and a penalty of 10% of the unpaid tax.

Mr Ashford advised evaders to make a disclosure, as they could still reduce the penalties they faced by coming forward voluntarily.

More recently, HMRC has launched tax payment campaigns against plumbers and restaurant owners.

"We are confident that these and more cases will be taken forward in the future," said Chris Harrison, HMRC criminal investigations deputy director.

"This is proof of HMRC's determination to increase the number of prosecutions we take forward in all areas. We are committed to ensuring everyone pays what they owe so that the maximum is available to spend on public services used by everyone."

Spain has lodged a complaint about plans for an EU-wide patent system with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which is obliged to hear the case.



The European Commission has defended the plans, claiming they are not unfair to countries that do not join up.

Plans to streamline cross-border patent protection processes were proposed by 12 EU countries last year, were backed by the European Commission in April and have been supported in all by 25 of the EU's 27 member states.

Under the new plans a European patent holder will make only one application to the European Patent Office for patent protection across the 25 EU countries that have signed up to the scheme, with successful patents being published in English, French or German. The countries hope it will make it easier and cheaper for inventors to safeguard against infringement.

The two countries that have not signed up the plan are Spain and Italy. Though reports have emerged that Italy has also objected to the plans, an ECJ spokesman told OUT-LAW.COM that it has only received an objection from Spain.

Implementation of the plans would not lead to discrimination of businesses in Italy and Spain, Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier has said, according to reports.

"I am confident that the enhanced co-operation procedure presented by the Commission is not discriminatory," Barnier said according to a Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) report. "We are assured that Italian and Spanish business will suffer no discrimination."

The OHIM website and EurActiv news service have reported that Italy, too, has lodged a complaint about the plans, which were made possible by an 'enhanced cooperation' mechanism introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. This allows groups of nine or more EU countries to use EU structures to make agreements that will bind only those countries which opt in to them.

Italy said that a patent agreement between the other EU countries was an attempt to create a "clique of power" and contravened "the equal right to dignity and the respect for the languages and culture of each member states", according to the EurActiv report.

"Enhanced cooperation was never intended to be used as a divisive instrument, effectively stretched in order to nullify the norms of the European Treaties which call for humanity, but as methods for groups of states to develop means of integration in which other states are not interested," the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, according to a report on the Eur Activ news website.

"The use of enhanced co-operation within the patent sector is contrary to the spirit of the single market, because it tends to create division and distortion within the market, and will thus prejudice Italian businesses," the Ministry said, according to the report.

Spain said future European patents cannot be based on linguistic discrimination, according to the Eur Activ report.

"We cannot understand why Spanish and other languages cannot have the same status of French, English and German," Spain's EU affairs minister Diego Lopez Garrido said, according to the report.

"[The Spanish government] insists that the reinforced cooperation mechanism was used to impose a solution which excludes Spain with a mechanism which, paradoxically, was thought up to facilitate the integration of the Member States,” Lopez Garrido said, according to the report.

“Spanish is a great European language and Spanish companies, Spanish innovators and patentors cannot be discriminated against for reasons of language," Lopez Garrido said, according to the report.

The European Commission has been trying to establish a unitary patent protection system for many years without success.

At the moment obtaining Europe-wide patent protection is only possible by validating a patent registered with the European Patent Office (EPO) in each individual country. To be valid in a country a patent must be translated into its language. The Commission has sought a cheaper system because of what it has said is the prohibitive cost of that process.

In December, 12 member states got together to push for new unifying patent protection regulations. Since December a further 13 countries have backed the proposals.

The countries were forced to revise their plans in March after the European Court of Justice said that the creation of a pan-European Patent Court to rule on disputes would contravene EU laws.

The Court would exist outside of the judicial structures already in place and so would leave citizens potentially without recourse to action though existing EU courts, the ECJ said at the time.

The Council of Ministers, along with the European Parliament, is currently reviewing the enhanced cooperation agreement plans of the 25 EU countries. It recently published draft amendments to the plans that include proposals to establish a dispute system that works within the existing EU judicial structures.

Competition ministers will discuss Italy and Spain's legal challenge at a meeting at the end of this month, according to reports.

Tuesday, 31 May 2011

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.

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

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.

 

Friday, 20 May 2011

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.

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."

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.

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.

 

Saturday, 9 April 2011

Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a thorough investigation of alleged "criminal behaviour" at the News of the World.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a thorough investigation of alleged "criminal behaviour" at the News of the World.

It comes after News International admitted there were at least eight victims of the phone-hacking scandal.

The company issued an apology and put aside £20m for compensation.

Lawyer Charlotte Harris, involved in several of the current cases, said there would now be a "massive flood of people contacting lawyers".

She told the BBC some of her clients - who include football agent Sky Andrew and actors Leslie Ash and Lee Chapman - had already been contacted by News International and were considering their options.

Wednesday, 30 March 2011

A lawyer at a leading civil liberties firm has expressed fears for the future of direct action protest

A lawyer at a leading civil liberties firm has expressed fears for the future of direct action protest after the mass arrest of UK Uncut activists during last Saturday's anti-cuts demonstrations in London.

Matt Foot, a criminal defence solicitor at Birnberg Pierce, said the detention of 145 activists during an occupation of luxury food store Fortnum and Mason in Piccadilly was "unprecedented". He has questioned the police's motivation.

After being arrested for aggravated trespass and criminal damage, scores of Uncut campaigners were dispersed to police stations around London as far apart as Harrow, Ilford and Romford and were held in police cells for up to 24 hours. The next day the accusation of criminal damage was dropped but 138 activists were bailed on the charge of aggravated trespass.

Foot, son of the campaigning journalist Paul Foot, said: "It is unprecedented to arrest so many people for simply protesting peacefully in a building. And then it is intimidating to keep peaceful protesters for so long at the police station and then charge them so quickly without reviewing the evidence first.

"To rush to treat people in this way and charge them on such a scale suggests the police want to make a statement. This is going to threaten the right to peacefully protest through direct action."

Commenting on video footage obtained by the Guardian in which a senior officer inside Fortnum's was captured telling Uncut campaigners they were "non-violent" and "sensible", Foot said: "It's fascinating that the police clearly took a view that these were peaceful protesters."

"Given the police's public comments about violence on the demonstration, it is extraordinary that the overwhelming numbers of arrests and charges have been for non-violent protesters. One has to question the motivation behind this."

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

Worker claims he was sacked for drinking the wrong tea

I’m flabbergasted. I have been a model employee. I have never been late or off sick in 11 years,’ said the 47-year-old, from Didsbury, Manchester. 'I can’t believe they can sack someone for something so trivial as using the wrong tea bags. I would have thought at the very worst this would deserve a warning – it’s a storm in a tea bag.'
He was told in a formal letter that his offence was 'misappropriation of company stock by taking items into the canteen without making prior payment'.
Prior to this Mr Alden had been disciplined for not keeping a note of the ages of people buying cigarettes and alcohol. Along with many other supermarkets, Co-op is part of a 'Challenge 25' initiative, where anyone who appears to be under that age is asked for ID. If they're definitely over 25 and haven't been challenged, staff still have to input their estimated age into the till.
A Co-op spokesman said Mr Alden was dismissed for breaching ‘a number of our business procedures’ but could appeal.

Lawyers for Sharon Shoesmith told the Court of Appeal that there had been ‘buck passing’ between Ofsted, former children’s secretary Ed Balls and Haringey council.

Lawyers for Sharon Shoesmith told the Court of Appeal that there had been ‘buck passing’ between Ofsted, former children’s secretary Ed Balls and Haringey council.
Ms Shoesmith was fired in 2008 from her £130,000 a-year job as head of children’s services at the council in London over failings exposed by the death of Peter Connelly.
She was at home ‘trapped by the media’ when she watched Mr Balls sack her on live TV, the court heard.
Ms Showemith's layer said Mr Balls had acted following an Ofsted report which showed 'damning findings' on Haringey children's services – a report that she had not seen, or been given a chance to respond to, before Mr Balls ordered her removal.
Peter died in August 2007, aged 17 months, at the hands of his mother Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker and lodger Jason Owen.
He suffered 50 injuries despite a total of 60 visits to the home by social workers, doctors and police.
The hearing continues.

2,000 of the most experienced police officers will be made to retire by 2015

2,000 of the most experienced police officers will be made to retire by 2015 as forces across England and Wales try to find 20% budget cuts, a Labour survey has claimed.

A series of Freedom of Information Act requests by the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has disclosed that over the next four years 13 of the 43 forces intend to use an obscure regulation to compulsorily retire 1,138 officers who have more than 30 years of service.

Labour estimates that a further 986 officers could be affected if some of the remaining 30 forces also decide to use the same regulation to find budget savings.

Cooper said that it was "deeply worrying" that 13 forces had already decided to use the A19 regulation to compulsorily retire some of the most experienced officers in the force.

"Some of these officers are experts in their fields and internationally respected for what they do in the fight against crime," she said.

"The home secretary must realise that you cannot make 20% front-loaded cuts to the police without losing the very crime fighters we need. The home secretary is taking unacceptable risks with public safety and the continued fight against crime."

As fully sworn officers of the crown rather than employees, policemen and women cannot be made redundant under existing rules. However, the A19 regulation can forcibly retire officers with more than 30 years' service on not less than two-thirds pension on the grounds of the efficiency of the force.

The experienced officers who have already left or are leaving the police this week include:

• An inspector with 33 years' service who is the longest serving specialist in crime reduction and crime prevention in England and Wales. He advises architects and builders on "designing out" crime in new buildings, especially on council estates.

• A neighbourhood sergeant who, at 48, is one of the youngest to be forcibly retired. He manages a team of officers and liaises with the local community on anti-social behaviour.

• A 55-year-old frontline roads policing officer who has spent the last 20 years responding to motorway incidents.

The latest Labour survey of police authority current plans shows that the jobs of 12,500 officers are to be lost over the next four years in addition to a further 15,000 police staff jobs, confirming the estimate of 28,000 jobs made by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

The Home Office estimated in November that 3,200 officers in England and Wales could be affected if all the 43 forces decided to enforce the compulsorily retirement rule.

The Labour survey suggests that a total of 2,200 are likely to be forced out through this route by 2015, indicating that deeper cuts in police staff numbers or other measures may be required.

Police forces froze their recruitment last year, which saw 2,500 jobs go through natural wastage.

Home Office minsters say that forces should be able to identify sufficient savings to ensure that the budget cuts have no effect on the level of service the public receive.

The police minister, Nick Herbert, said there were currently "immense opportunities" to make savings without hitting the frontline.

music website that illegally streamed and sold music by the Beatles has been forced to pay record labels almost $1m [£625,000].

music website that illegally streamed and sold music by the Beatles has been forced to pay record labels almost $1m [£625,000]. Other artists whose copyright had been violated included Coldplay and Radiohead.

US-based Bluebeat.com denied doing anything wrong on the basis that the tracks has been distributed using owner Hank Risan's "psycho-acoustic simulation" -- a technique based on using tracks that he'd purchased on CD. In other words, he was ripping the songs from a CD or LP and then selling them for just 25 cents [15p] a pop.

The BBC reports that Bluebeat's defence failed to impress district court judge Josephine Staton Tucker who described Risan's methodology as "obscure and undefined pseudo-scientific language that appears to be a long-winded way of describing sampling."

Archie Robinson, the company's attorney, implied that as the settlement was a fraction what EMI Group plc, Capitol Records and Virgin Records America had been trying for, the labels were tacitly agreeing that Bluebeat was in the right.

"I felt that was sort of an acknowledgement on their part that they don't have the damages they claimed," he said. "So long as we pay royalties, we can stream their music all day and all night without a problem."

It’s a lot more difficult for police to search your car than it used to be

It’s a lot more difficult for police to search your car than it used to be. Action News is following up on the change requiring police to get a search warrant to see what's in your glove compartment or under your seats. We learned this new criteria has meant a lot fewer people are being busted for drug violations.

From coke to weed, State Police see it all on Washington highways.
But, troopers now need much more than their senses to make an arrest. They’re required to get a search warrant, or your consent, to look in a suspicious vehicle.
"We don't necessarily stumble across things like we used to,” said Trooper Paul Woodside. “Now, we have to put more effort into it."
And that additional effort of getting a warrant can take anywhere from ten minutes to well over an hour. That’s time that can keep a trooper off the road even longer while making a stop.
KIMA/KEPR learned the changes have severely impacted arrests in Yakima County and the Tri Cities.
As for the Yakima, back in 2009 when warrants weren't required, nearly 88 people were thrown in jail on felony drug charges. The following year, that number dropped a third to 60 arrests. And for just January and February of 2011, there have been only three.
We found a similar trend in the Tri-Cities. In 2009, WSP made nearly 60 felony drug arrests. By 2010, that number was down roughly 80% just 13. As for January and February of 2011, there have only been two.
Still, WSP told Action News the public doesn’t need to worry.
"I don't think there are more drugs on the streets necessarily,” said Woodside. “I think the same people are using drugs out there. I don't think the number has increased. It's just tougher to find it."
Tougher, but definitely still possible. State police rely heavily on drug dogs. They also undergo additional training to help detect suspicious behaviors. They’re committed to doing whatever they can to catching the bad guys.
"We aren't giving up. We're still doing out doing our jobs."
That job will just take a little longer.
State police must also suspend a search if they come across any illegal item not specified in the warrant. They have to call back a judge and get a new one. An entire case can get thrown out if the warrant is not executed correctly.

Changes to "no win, no fee" arrangements will be at the heart of a shake-up of civil justice in England and Wales

Changes to "no win, no fee" arrangements will be at the heart of a shake-up of civil justice in England and Wales being announced later.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke told the BBC he favoured a system where lawyers received a share of the damages, rather than an additional "success fee".

In 2008-9 the NHS paid out £312m in damages but £456m in legal costs, he pointed out.

The change follows a review carried out by Lord Justice Jackson in 2010.

Lord Justice Jackson's review of the system said lawyers in "no-win, no-fee" civil cases should no longer have a "success fee" which has to be paid by the defendants, but should get a share of damages.

The judge found huge rises in civil litigation costs in England and Wales in recent years and said reforms could save people millions.

According to the BBC's legal correspondent, Clive Coleman, critics say the scheme can encourage unscrupulous lawyers to take frivolous accusations to court.

He said the plan was to increase the amount of damages across the board by 10% to offset the loss of the "success fee".


Mr Clarke told the Today programme Lord Justice Jackson's report was "on his desk" when he took over from Jack Straw after the election last year.

He said: "If you say to someone 'you should go to a lawyer' they tend to go pale, not because they fear lawyers, but because they know there are a great deal of costs involved and they are daunted by our legal system."

Mr Clarke said legal costs should be "reasonable" but they should also be high enough that people treat going to court as a "last resort".

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Troubled security firm Reliance has lost its £2million a month contract to escort prisoners between custody and court appearances.

Troubled security firm Reliance has lost its £2million a month contract to escort prisoners between custody and court appearances.

Around 700 jobs are affected by the Scottish Prison Service’s decision to ask rivals G4S Care and Justice Services to transfer around 180,000 inmates a year.

The move follows blunders by Reliance in its handling of prisoners during its seven-year contract, which is due to end in January.

They include an inmate escaping from a prison van in Edinburgh last year and three years ago a pregnant prisoner being chained to an officer for three days as she was treated in hospital.

The company has defended its record and declined to comment on the decision.

G4S manages the immigration detention centre at Dungavel in South Lanarkshire and large private prisons south of the Border.

Its managing director Russell Hobbs said: “G4S has unrivalled expertise in the care and transport of prisoners.

“We are delighted to be providing court services for Scotland.”

It is understood the 700 staff employed by Reliance to handle its prisoner escort service will be covered by Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) laws to protect workers when a contract or business changes hands.

In 2008, Reliance apologised to pregnant Donna McLeish, an inmate at Cornton Vale women’s prison in Stirling, who was chained to a security officer 24-hours a day while being treated at Stirling Royal Infirmary.

Changes were later made to the way pregnant prisoners are handled.

In April 2009, 28-year-old Brian Lamb vaulted out of the dock after hearing he was to be jailed and in April last year, a prisoner broke free from a prison van stopped at traffic lights in West Lothian.

Labour’s justice spokesman Richard Baker MSP said the award of the major long-term contract should not have been approved by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill so close to May’s Scottish Parliament elections.

He said. “This is a decision that should have been taken by an incoming administration.”

Gay couples on the Isle of Man will get the right to a civil partnership after a new law

Gay couples on the Isle of Man will get the right to a civil partnership after a new law was signed in Tynwald, the island's parliament.

It gives them the same rights as married couples regarding inheritance, pensions and tax allowances.

The law comes into effect on 6 April. Civil partnerships gained legal recognition in the UK in 2006.

Allan Bell, MHK, Minister for Economic Development, who tabled the bill says gay rights have been brought in line with the UK after a 20-year battle.

Oxford University will charge reduced tuition fees of £3,500 for first-year students from the poorest backgrounds from 2012 under funding proposals announced on Tuesday.

Oxford University will charge reduced tuition fees of £3,500 for first-year students from the poorest backgrounds from 2012 under funding proposals announced on Tuesday.
Although the institution plans to charge the full £9,000 a year for undergraduates whose parents and guardians earn more than £25,001, it has put forward a sliding scale of fees for lower-income families.
A student from a household earning less than £16,000 per annum would be charged £3,500 for the first year and £6,000 for subsequent years. Currently, the maximum charge is £3,000 per year.
They would also qualify for the highest tier of bursary offered by the university to cover student living costs, of £4,300 in the first year and £3,300 afterwards.
But those from households earning between £16,001 and £20,000 would be charged £7,000 for every year of study, and the annual cost would be £8,000 for families with an income of £20,001 to £25,000.
Tuition fees would not need to be paid back until the student has graduated and is earning a salary of at least £21,000.
On Monday, Oxford University's council approved proposals to offer income-dependent bursaries to all students whose parents earn less than £42,600 a year, ranging from £4,300 to £1,000 in the first year and £3,300 to £500 for following years.
Vice-chancellor Andrew Hamilton said in a letter to parents and staff that "about one in six" students would benefit from the tuition fee waivers.
"The total value of the package of waivers and bursaries is more than £12 million a year, nearly double what we spend at present," he said.
The university - which estimates each undergraduate costs £16,000 a year to educate - has until mid-April to submit its tuition fee plans to the government's Office for Fair Access (OFFA) for approval. An OFFA spokesman said all proposals would be approved or rejected by July 11.

shake-up of libel laws in England and Wales will ensure people can state honest opinions and facts in confidence,

shake-up of libel laws in England and Wales will ensure people can state honest opinions and facts in confidence, the justice secretary says.

The draft Defamation Bill, published on Tuesday, also aims to reduce "libel tourism" by overseas claimants.

Protections from libel - absolute and qualified privilege - will be extended.

But Ken Clarke said the bill would balance the needs of both sides, as it was never acceptable to harm someone's reputation without just cause.

He said in recent years the increased threat of costly libel actions had had a "chilling effect" on scientific and academic debate, and investigative journalism.

"The right to speak freely and debate issues without fear of censure is a vital cornerstone of a democratic society."

Mr Clarke added: "However it is never acceptable to harm someone's reputation without just cause, so the bill will ensure defamation law continues to balance the needs of both sides and encourage a just outcome in libel cases."

Substantial harm
The draft bill introduces new statutory defences to protect those writing about issues of public interest.

The current common law defences of "justification" and "fair comment" will be scrapped, replaced with new statutory defences of "truth" and "honest opinion".

There will be a new requirement in the bill that a statement must have caused, or be likely to cause, substantial harm to someone's reputation, if it is to be considered defamatory.


We cannot continue to tolerate a culture in which scientists, journalists and bloggers are afraid to tackle issues of public importance for fear of being sued”

Nick Clegg
Deputy PM
The government says the new laws will make it tougher for people to bring overseas claims which have little connection to the UK.

And the proposals include a "single publication rule" - to prevent claims being brought more than one year after publication. It could stop repeat claims being made related to material published on the internet. Libel actions can currently be brought years after a story is placed in an archive, as publication is considered to be continuous.

The bill also removes the presumption that defamation cases will be heard by a jury trial - instead the judge will be given discretion to order a jury trial when it is "in the interests of justice".

The government says the right to trial by jury is rare in civil cases and there are concerns that it can mean issues which could have been resolved by a judge early on instead cannot be resolved until the trial.

'Devil in the detail'
Lord Phillips, President of the Supreme Court, has said defamation cases can be so complex that a jury trial "simply invites expensive interlocutory battles".

But Mr Clarke said in exceptional cases there should be jury trials - as they were still one of the best ways to tell which one of two witnesses was telling the truth.

Deputy PM Nick Clegg said current "outdated" libel laws had "made it easy for the powerful and the wealthy to stifle fair criticism" and the proposals would restore "a sense of proportion to the law".

"We cannot continue to tolerate a culture in which scientists, journalists and bloggers are afraid to tackle issues of public importance for fear of being sued."

However, calls to give "secondary publishers" like internet service providers, internet discussion forums and booksellers greater protection has been put out to consultation, as have suggestions that specific restrictions should be put on the ability of corporations to bring defamation actions.

Shadow justice minister Rob Flello said the draft bill built on work that had begun under the previous Labour government.

"It is important we bring to an end libel tourism which damages Britain's reputation. Protection under the law must be available to everyone, whatever their means, while ensuring the public interest is served by a free press."

He added: "The devil will be in the detail of this bill and how it will bring libel laws up to date and in line with a growing online media."

Monday, 14 March 2011

consumers are skeptical about offers for extra protection. Nevertheless, industry analysts say big banks will consider making fee-based protection services a bigger part of their business model, as other sources of revenue decline under new federal regulations.

The basic pitch from banks and credit card companies has been around awhile: We’ll monitor your credit, alert you if we see fraud, and help you recover if your identity is stolen–all for a low monthly fee.

But fewer consumers are signing up, likely because they are less scared and a bit smarter about protecting themselves.

Identity theft and fraud incidents dropped in 2010, and more consumers are shredding documents, watching for strange charges on their accounts and checking credit reports regularly.

Many consumers are skeptical about offers for extra protection. Nevertheless, industry analysts say big banks will consider making fee-based protection services a bigger part of their business model, as other sources of revenue decline under new federal regulations.

Wednesday, 2 February 2011

Christian Littlewood, 37, who received an annual salary of more than £350,000 at Dresdner Kleinwort , has been jailed for three years and four months.

An investment banker who tried to pin blame for a £2.15m insider dealing scam on his wife and her friend has been jailed in what a judge described as the “biggest prosecution for insider trading ever brought” in Britain.

Christian Littlewood, 37, who received an annual salary of more than £350,000 at Dresdner Kleinwort , has been jailed for three years and four months.

His Singaporean-born wife, Angie, received a suspended prison sentence. Her friend, Helmy Omar Sa’aid, who helped the couple in their eight years of insider trading, was sentenced to two years in prison and faces deportation.

All three had previously pleaded guilty to eight counts of insider trading in stocks such as Viridian Group and RCO Holdings after using price sensitive information supplied by Mr Littlewood in his role as a director at Dresdner and later at Shore Capital. The trio invested £2.15m in trades and netted £590,000 profits.

Mr Littlewood’s jail term is the longest imposed on a UK insider dealer and came as the Financial Services Authority intensified its prosecutions of City professionals suspected of wrongdoing.

Monday, 31 January 2011

Milan judges quiz woman at heart of Berlusconi inquiry

Milan judges quiz woman at heart of Berlusconi inquiry - The Times of India: "Milan judges have questioned a 25-year-old woman accused of helping to recruit underage girls to attend Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's parties, ANSA news agency said.

The judges on Sunday summoned Nicole Minetti as part of a probe into the prime minister's alleged dalliances with under-age prostitutes.

Originally scheduled for Tuesday, they brought forward the session to allow Minetti to escape excessive media attention, ANSA reported, citing her lawyer Daria Pesce."

Agreement to end child recruitment in Afghan police

AFP: Agreement to end child recruitment in Afghan police: "The Afghan government and the United Nations on Sunday agreed to stop underage recruitment by the Afghan security forces and stem a range of violations against children in the conflict.
The agreement aims to 'prevent under-age recruitment into the Afghan National Security Forces as well as other violations committed against children in the context of the conflict,' a statement said.
Faced with a need to swell the ranks of the Afghan army and police forces, minors have been enlisted with some treated as sex slaves by local military commanders, it added.
Although Kabul officially bans the recruitment of children under 18 years of age, insufficient measures to verify age, low levels of birth registration and the easy manipulation of age in national identity cards have driven an increase in underage recruitment.
Sunday's agreement aims to boost the birth registrations system and the issuance of national IDs, as well as to prosecute those responsible for underage recruitment while helping children reintegrate back into society."

Dhaka may arrest top Islamist leader for war crimes

Dhaka may arrest top Islamist leader for war crimes: "Bangladesh's top Islamist leader Ghulam Azam, who chaired the formation of the militia that allegedly killed thousands of unarmed civilians four decades ago, may be arrested on charges of committing 'war crimes', a media report said.

Mohammad Abdul Hannan Khan, the senior-most member of the International War Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh, said 'some progress' in investigation into the allegations against Azam had been conducted.

He, however, did not mention about any time-frame for Azam's arrest, The Daily Star reported Sunday.

Azam, 88, was the Ameer (chief) of the Jamaat-e-Islami in then East Pakistan beginning 1969. He led the formation of the Shanti Committee, Al Shams, Al Badr and Razakars -- various Islamist militia accused of acting on behalf of the then Pakistani Martial Law administration."

Fred Korematsu: Statewide California holiday honors civil rights hero Fred Korematsu - latimes.com

Fred Korematsu: Statewide California holiday honors civil rights hero Fred Korematsu - latimes.com: "Twenty-nine eager fifth-grade faces stare up at Ines Trinh between recess and lunch one day last week. The children have been studying stories about perseverance in the face of pain; 'Give It All You've Got,' the lesson's catchy theme, is printed in big letters on a poster in Room 21.

The teacher has just read her young students at Lorenzo Manor Elementary School a book called 'The Bracelet.' It's the story of Emi, a Berkeley second-grader sent to an internment camp during World War II just because she was Japanese American. New vocabulary words: 'Injustice.' 'Inequality.'"

Family of soldier disappointed at war crimes charges | Reuters

Family of soldier disappointed at war crimes charges | Reuters: "Lieutenant General Curtis Scaparrotti has ordered the Army to proceed with trial of Private First Class Andrew Holmes, 20, on charges of murdering an Afghan civilian, conspiring to harm Afghans and using drugs during his deployment with the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

Holmes, of Boise, Idaho, faces life imprisonment if convicted. A trial date has not yet been set."

:Text may be subject to copyright.This blog does not claim copyright to any such text. Copyright remains with the original copyright holder.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

NEW STATS