Murder arrest after man dies in quadbike crash
Two men have been arrested, including one on suspicion of murder, after a man died following a crash involving a quadbike on a main road.
A 20-year-old man from Brynmawr, Blaenau Gwent, was pronounced dead at the scene after a quadbike was found overturned on the A465 westbound between Rhymney, Caerphilly, and Dowlais, Merthyr Tydfil, at around 04:50 BST on Saturday.
A 40-year-old man from Merthyr Tydfil has been arrested on suspicion of murder and driving while unfit through drink and driving while unfit through drugs.
A second man, a 37-year-old from Merthyr Tydfil, has been arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender.
Both remain in police custody.
Police believe a second vehicle – a white BMW found burned out in the Dowlais area – may have been involved in the crash.
Man dies in quadbike crash on main road
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules in favor of U.S. gun makers in Mexico's lawsuit
June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers. "The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the opinion of the court. Mexico filed suit in March against a group of companies that includes Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock, alleging that the defendants violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, which can allow for some lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms. As stated in the case document, Mexico purports the accused companies "aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels," and failed to exercise "reasonable care" to keep their guns from being trafficked into Mexico. Kagan explained that it falls on the plaintiff in this case to properly show that the defendant companies directly committed violations of PLCAA, or otherwise "the predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made." Kagan did include that "Mexico has a severe gun violence problem, which its government views as coming from north of the border." She added that the country has only a single gun store, which is slightly inaccurate as Mexico currently has two, but in regard of the one store she mentioned, Kagan claimed that it "issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year." She also purported gun traffickers can purchase weaponry in the United States, often illegally, and then take those guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Kagan further noted that as per the Mexican government, "as many as 90% of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States." Nonetheless, the court ruled "that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers' part." This is why, Kagan explained, that the defendant companies are immune under the PLCAA. In a concurring statement, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court's opinion hasn't resolved what exactly a future plaintiff will have to show to prove a defendant has committed a PLCAA violation, and that Mexico hadn't "adequately pleaded its theory of the case." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also included a concurring statement that Congress passed PLCAA in order to decide "which duties to impose on the firearms industry," and that ignoring PLCAA's set reasons that do "authorize lawsuits like the one Mexico filed here" would twist PLCAA's main purpose.
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court rules in favor of U.S. gun makers in Mexico's lawsuit
Various semiautomatic handguns are displayed in a case at a gun store in Dundee, Ill. (2010). On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers. File Photo by Brian Kersey/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers. "The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the opinion of the court. Mexico filed suit in March against a group of companies that includes Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock, alleging that the defendants violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, which can allow for some lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms. As stated in the case document, Mexico purports the accused companies "aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels," and failed to exercise "reasonable care" to keep their guns from being trafficked into Mexico. Kagan explained that it falls on the plaintiff in this case to properly show that the defendant companies directly committed violations of PLCAA, or otherwise "the predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made." Kagan did include that "Mexico has a severe gun violence problem, which its government views as coming from north of the border." She added that the country has only a single gun store, which is slightly inaccurate as Mexico currently has two, but in regard of the one store she mentioned, Kagan claimed that it "issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year." She also purported gun traffickers can purchase weaponry in the United States, often illegally, and then take those guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Kagan further noted that as per the Mexican government, "as many as 90% of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States." Nonetheless, the court ruled "that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers' part." This is why, Kagan explained, that the defendant companies are immune under the PLCAA. In a concurring statement, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court's opinion hasn't resolved what exactly a future plaintiff will have to show to prove a defendant has committed a PLCAA violation, and that Mexico hadn't "adequately pleaded its theory of the case." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also included a concurring statement that Congress passed PLCAA in order to decide "which duties to impose on the firearms industry," and that ignoring PLCAA's set reasons that do "authorize lawsuits like the one Mexico filed here" would twist PLCAA's main purpose.
