A5 road contractors 'instructed to vacate land' vested for upgrade
It follows a High Court ruling that the £1.2bn project does not comply with Stormont's 2022 Climate Change Act.
UTV has seen a letter sent to those affected.
The letter said: "The effect of the judgement is that, as of 27th June 2025, the ownership of vested lands has now reverted to you and all other affected landowners.
"Therefore, the Department has instructed its contractors to vacate the land."
Work had already started along the the first phase of the new route from Ballygawley to Strabane.
The Infrastructure Minister defended the decision to carry on with clearing the land ahead of the court decision.
On 23rd June, a High Court Judge ruled the plan to build the A5 Western Transport Corridor could not go ahead in its current form because it does not comply with climate change targets.
Earlier this week, Liz Kimmins said she would be "pursuing" an appeal to the ruling which will require Executive approval.
The letter said the Department will now seek to agree "reasonable costs" for reinstatement of the vested lands and compensation for the use and occupation of the land from the 25th November 2024.
A meeting will be held with agents and the Ulster Farmers Union on Friday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Terrorist who confessed to masterminding 7/7 London bombings AND 9/11 'could be walking the streets of Britain in days'
A 'despicable' terrorist who confessed to his role in 9/11 and the July 7 bombings is set to be freed from prison within days despite officials declaring him a 'risk to national security'. Haroon Aswat, 50, could be released from a secure hospital unit in the UK without a full risk assessment due to his mental health treatment. He was jailed in 2015 in the US for 20 years having admitted trying to start a terrorist training camp in Oregon. Aswat was visited by a British psychiatrist in America before he was deported back to Britain in 2022 where he declared: 'I'm a terrorist.' Now newly-surfaced US court documents show Aswat also confessed to being a 'mastermind behind the [9/11] attacks and a 2005 attack in the UK', The Sun has reported. In addition to his connection to the 7/7 London terror bombings, which killed 52 people, Aswat has also threatened to kill Jews, Christians and certain groups of Muslims. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said he feared Aswat's return to the streets of Britain and said: 'He should never experience freedom again.' Despite officials admitting their concern and the High Court's Mr Justice Robert Jay previously saying there was 'evidence of an ongoing risk', Aswat will only be subject to a notification order upon his release. It means Aswat must continually notify the police about certain information and keep them up-to-date. These details include his address, foreign travel details and vehicle registration. Earlier this year Mr Justice Jay concluded: 'These were very serious offences and there is evidence of ongoing risk. 'A risk assessment in relation to terrorist offending is always inherently uncertain and in the present case is compounded by the mental instability of the defendant. 'Overall, I am satisfied for the reasons that I have given that a notification order should be made in all the circumstances of this case. 'A psychiatrist has deemed his treatment as being effective and his release from detention is expected in the relatively near future, with the understanding being that he will return to his family in Yorkshire.' He added: 'No formal terrorist risk assessment has been carried out since the defendant's return here. The circumstances of his detention have precluded that. 'However, on the basis of the material which is available the defendant has been assessed by various police officers — including the senior officer dealing with this case — that he remains a risk to national security.' A document from the US District Court, which has been released for the first time, described Aswat as a terrorist and foot soldier of al-Qaeda, and revealed he openly admitted to his involvement in terrorist activities. 'In March 2017 the defendant stated, 'if you think I am a terrorist, I don't shy away from my responsibility' and also stated he was a mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and a 2005 terrorist attack in the UK.' The papers show that Aswat revealed his associations with Osama bin Laden and that he had spent time training in al-Queda camps in Afghanistan just months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which claimed more than 3,000 lives. His name was also found on a ledger discovered in a house in Pakistan where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 'architect' of 9/11, had been staying. Other activities included helping hate preacher Abu Hamza establish a US terror camp in 1999, staying at a house in Pakistan in 2002 - where he met two of the 7/7 bombers - and possessing a terror manual and alleged bomb materials. Police also traced 20 calls made by the 7/7 bombers to a phone connected to Aswat. Det Chief Supt Gareth Rees, head of operations for the Met's SO15 Counter Terrorism Command, said of Aswat in a witness statement: 'Based on my experience, this is conduct which gives me grave concerns about the risk which the defendant poses to the UK's national security and to the public.' A report compiled by Dr Richard Taylor, who travelled to America in the summer of 2022, found Aswat still posed a risk to the public. The report states that in 2017 Aswat made remarks to prison staff in support of Al Qaeda and threatened violence towards them. In 2022 he sent letters which made demands and death threats, seemingly motivated by a terrorist ideology. Dr Taylor concluded that he openly endorsed an extremist ideology, but there was no evidence that Aswat was mentally ill. However he had had limited opportunity to address the extremist mindset and showed traits of glibness, superficial charm, charisma, intelligence and elements of manipulativeness and narcissism. Even when mentally stable he continued to express violent, extremist Islamic ideology, Dr Taylor found. The diagnosis showed a schizoaffective disorder with symptoms showing unpredictable and aggressive behaviour. Dr Taylor did not complete a full terrorist risk assessment, but identified 15 of the 22 relevant factors in the government's extreme risk guidance. He concluded: 'There remains the risk of Islamic violent extremism motivated targeted terrorist offending behaviour given his threats to kill Jews, Christians and certain groups of Muslims. 'There is also a risk of him influencing other vulnerable individuals, as when he is in an abnormal mental state his religious extremist rhetoric is amplified by mental illness.' A senior police officer, Detective Inspector Karen Bradley, who was involved in the case, concluded that Aswat remains a risk to national security. Aswat was born and grew up in Yorkshire but moved to Wood Green in north London where he fell under the spell of hate preacher Abu Hamza - and together they planned a terror training camp in Oregon with Aswat moving to Seattle to organise it. He also spent time in Afghanistan and in Pakistan - where he met and associated with fellow Yorkshire terror sympathiser Mohammed Sidique Khan and his accomplice Shehzad Tanweer. They would go on to carry out the deadly 7/7 bombings in London which killed 52 people on underground trains and a bus in July 2005. Aswat served most of his sentence in America and was deported back to the UK in December 2022. He is currently detained at Bethlem Royal Hospital in Bromley, south east London. A Government spokesman said: 'Protecting our national security is the very first priority of this government and if any individual poses a threat to that security, the police and intelligence services have a range of powers they can apply to deal with that threat. 'We will always do whatever is necessary inside the law to protect the public from any risk posed by former terrorist offenders or people of terrorist concern.'
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Trial delays for most serious crimes set to grow longer
The most serious cases coming before Scotland's courts could be faced with even longer delays, despite the system's ongoing recovery from the Covid number of cases waiting to go on trial in the overall court system is now lower than at any time since the first lockdown was imposed in March at the same time there has been a significant increase in cases sent to the High Court, which deals with offences including murder, attempted murder, rape, terrorism and death by dangerous a limited pool of judges and defence lawyers and no scope to increase capacity, the backlog at that level is now expected to build. In Scotland, criminal cases are heard in three types of courts: the High Court of Justiciary, Sheriff Courts, and Justice of the Peace the year before Covid, 1,024 cases were registered at the High are predicting that is going to rise to 1,404 this financial year, a 40% increase on the figure before the pandemic. The average waiting time between an accused pleading not guilty and their High Court trial had been falling but is now creeping back year it is expected to be 43 weeks, compared to 22 before the Support Scotland says it is not unusual for cases to take as long two years to get to court after the initial incident or organisation's chief executive Kate Wallace said: "It's too traumatising for people."Having to try to remember and keep that memory of what happened in the forefront of their mind so they can give good evidence at court, asking people to do that for two years and longer, it's inhumane."We need to recognise that what we're asking of people is not in the interests of justice." Before the pandemic, the number of scheduled trials across the whole system was 18, peaked at 43,606 in January 2022 but introducing extra courts and using cinemas as Covid-safe jury centres helped get the backlog down. It's now standing at 17,873. Malcolm Graham, chief executive at the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, is calling for a multi-million pound investment to modernise the system and relieve pressure on the High Court. He said: "I'm very concerned about the position in the High Court. I'm acutely aware that it has a huge impact on victims and witnesses and the accused."If cases take longer, there's a danger that justice isn't best served and that's not what our ambition is."Mr Graham argues that Scotland's courts are in desperate need of more digital infrastructure and technology, emulating a £1bn investment in the courts in England and Wales."The criminal justice system at the moment is largely a paper based system and that slows everything down," he said."It doesn't appear to be an option for public services to just keep growing. We have to get targeted investment into technology and better ways of working." Senior defence lawyer Tony Lenehan KC, vice-dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said increased funding for prosecutors has allowed more cases to be brought forward and should be matched with increased funding for the courts service."If there are no changes to the resources available to the courts, you're going to inevitably have longer delays both for witnesses waiting to give the important evidence and for people, potentially held in custody, awaiting trial," he said."The (Scottish) government needs to look again at the fact that although they've invested more in the prosecution, they need to invest more again in the courts, to allow the bandwidth to be expanded, so that we can deal with things at the rate and the efficiency that we presently are."A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said: "Together with our criminal justice sector partners, we are working at pace to respond to the increase in cases reported to us, and to address the changing landscape of increasingly complex prosecutions." Digital evidence sharing The Scottish government said it had provided over £201m to help the system recover from the impact of the pandemic, including £20.3m for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service for the current financial year."Scotland is the only part of the UK to have brought court backlog levels back down to below Covid levels," said a government says journey times in criminal court cases are being reduced through digital evidence sharing and an initiative called summary case management, which has also resulted in more cases being resolved at an earlier stage without going to believes that two bills currently before parliament will also be key to modernising the justice system.
Scottish Sun
8 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Husband handed just £325k of wife's £60MILLION family fortune in bitter divorce battle WINS bid to get more cash
He claims to be the victim of 'gender prejudice' DIVORCE ROW Husband handed just £325k of wife's £60MILLION family fortune in bitter divorce battle WINS bid to get more cash A MAN who was awarded just £325,000 of his wife's £60 million fortune has now won a bitter divorce battle. The divorcee blamed "gender prejudice" for his original 0.5% payout during a hearing at the Court of Appeal. Advertisement 3 Jenny Helliwell, 42, was said to have behaved "fraudulently" Credit: Champion News Service 3 Simon Entwistle, 42, was awarded just £325,000 after a 'painful' divorce battle Credit: Champion News Service Simon Entwistle, 42, a financial trader, was awarded just £325,000 at the High Court after a "painful" divorce battle with multimillionaire heiress Jenny Helliwell, also 42. His claim of needing £36,000 a year for flights, and £26,000 for "a meal plan just for himself", was called "aspirational" by the judge. The judge added: "He said to me, 'I can't even cook an omelette,' well my answer to that is 'learn', it is not difficult." "You do not have to be a master chef to learn how to eat reasonably well." Advertisement Now, a judge has found Jenny guilty of "fraudulent" behaviour by failing to declare £48m of her £66m personal fortune. The pair, who were together from 2016 until 2022, enjoyed an "opulent standard of living throughout their relationship." Simon reportedly "enjoyed the trappings of being married into a family of exceptional wealth". This included living in a £4.5m villa in Dubai, and a Parisian wedding ceremony that cost £500,000 in August 2019. Advertisement The villa had been a gift from Jenny's father - Dubai-based British businessman Neil Helliwell. Simon's own assets were worth around £800,000, including a flat in Salford. Teen Mom star Ryan Edwards begs judge not to force him to expose top-secret MTV contract and NDA in nasty divorce When the couple split in August 2022, Jenny hired lawyers to order Simon to leave their home with just 48 hours' notice. It sparked a legal battle that would see Simon asking for £2.5m of his wife's fortune, estimated to be worth £60m. Advertisement Jenny had offered him £500,000, and then £800,000 to avoid a court battle, but he refused in the hopes of an £2.5m award. However, the original judge awarded just a £400,000 payout following a pre-nuptial agreement that stated the pair would keep their own assets. This came to £325,000 after he was made to pay his wife's legal fees. During an appeal, Simon claimed he was a victim of "gender prejudice", and that the agreement had been invalidated by Jenny failing to disclose around £48m in assets when he signed the document. Advertisement His lawyer said: "Had the positions been reversed, it is very unlikely that he would have... so ungenerously assessed the needs of a wife after a six-year relationship." A judge has ruled that this amounted to "fraudulent" behaviour, invalidating the agreement. While Jenny did disclose around £18m in assets, she failed to disclose an additional £47m. It included around £8m of beachfront land in Dubai, and a £1.6m property in Wimbledon. Advertisement This meant that Simon did not sign the agreement with full knowledge of his partner's wealth. She did not make any findings on the gender prejudice argument. The case will now be returned to the High Court, to be judged as if the agreement didn't exist. Lady Justice King said: "Since the husband in the instant case was deliberately deprived of information which it had been agreed that he should have, in my judgment, the agreement cannot stand." Advertisement
