
SKorea President Lee's law violation hearing postponed
A Seoul court has indefinitely postponed the trial of South Korea's President Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law in 2022.
South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May, before Lee was elected, that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court.
The Seoul High Court, which had scheduled a hearing for the case on June 18, said on Monday that it will postpone the hearing "to be decided later" without a date, a court spokesperson confirmed.
Lee's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The court said its decision to postpone the hearing was due to "Constitution Article 84", without elaborating.
South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes.
However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected.
The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where Lee's trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May.
"The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said.
Lee's ruling Democratic Party, which controls parliament, is planning to pass a bill this week which suspends ongoing trials for the incumbent president, local broadcaster KBS reported.
The Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, legal experts have said.
A Seoul court has indefinitely postponed the trial of South Korea's President Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law in 2022.
South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May, before Lee was elected, that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court.
The Seoul High Court, which had scheduled a hearing for the case on June 18, said on Monday that it will postpone the hearing "to be decided later" without a date, a court spokesperson confirmed.
Lee's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The court said its decision to postpone the hearing was due to "Constitution Article 84", without elaborating.
South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes.
However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected.
The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where Lee's trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May.
"The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said.
Lee's ruling Democratic Party, which controls parliament, is planning to pass a bill this week which suspends ongoing trials for the incumbent president, local broadcaster KBS reported.
The Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, legal experts have said.
A Seoul court has indefinitely postponed the trial of South Korea's President Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law in 2022.
South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May, before Lee was elected, that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court.
The Seoul High Court, which had scheduled a hearing for the case on June 18, said on Monday that it will postpone the hearing "to be decided later" without a date, a court spokesperson confirmed.
Lee's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The court said its decision to postpone the hearing was due to "Constitution Article 84", without elaborating.
South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes.
However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected.
The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where Lee's trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May.
"The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said.
Lee's ruling Democratic Party, which controls parliament, is planning to pass a bill this week which suspends ongoing trials for the incumbent president, local broadcaster KBS reported.
The Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, legal experts have said.
A Seoul court has indefinitely postponed the trial of South Korea's President Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law in 2022.
South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May, before Lee was elected, that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court.
The Seoul High Court, which had scheduled a hearing for the case on June 18, said on Monday that it will postpone the hearing "to be decided later" without a date, a court spokesperson confirmed.
Lee's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The court said its decision to postpone the hearing was due to "Constitution Article 84", without elaborating.
South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes.
However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected.
The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where Lee's trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May.
"The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said.
Lee's ruling Democratic Party, which controls parliament, is planning to pass a bill this week which suspends ongoing trials for the incumbent president, local broadcaster KBS reported.
The Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, legal experts have said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sky News AU
18 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Would be a great thing': Trump backs calls for Gavin Newsom to be arrested amid LA protests
US President Donald Trump has backed calls for California Governor Gavin Newsom to be arrested. The Democrat Governor has been critical of the Trump administration's immigration enforcement measures, which overrode California's state authority. President Trump's answer came in response to a question about border czar Tom Homan, who has threatened to arrest anyone who obstructs enforcement efforts. 'I would do it if I were Tom – I think it's great. Gavin likes publicity, but I think it would be a great thing. He's done a terrible job,' President Trump said. Mr Newsom responded on social media, claiming: 'We are suing Donald Trump. This is a manufactured crisis. He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the US Constitution. 'This is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism that threatens the foundation of our republic. We cannot let it stand.'

Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘I would do it': Trump says California governor should be arrested, as protests spread
The White House declined to comment on the incident and referred questions to the Los Angeles Police Department, which said it would issue a statement later on Monday. Nine owns this masthead. As protesters clashed with police and set fire to driverless Waymo cars in downtown Los Angeles, the political firestorm raged over Trump's decision to usurp Newsom's authority and deploy the California National Guard. Newsom and Democratic allies argued the decision inflamed tensions and turned what was a relatively small, controllable protest into violent riots in which dozens were arrested over the weekend. He also said Trump's deployment of the National Guard was illegal, and vowed to file a federal lawsuit. Responding to Trump's call for him to be arrested, Newsom said it crossed a line that he hoped would never be crossed in the US. 'This is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' he said. Trump, meanwhile, continued to defend his decision to deploy the National Guard, whose duties were largely limited to protecting federal government buildings. In a social media post, he said Los Angeles would otherwise have been 'completely obliterated' and that Bass and Newsom – whom he again called Newscum – should be thanking him. But Hillary Clinton, the former Democratic secretary of state who lost to Trump in 2016, said in a post on X: 'Trump's goal isn't to keep Californians safe. His goal is to cause chaos, because chaos is good for Trump.' Protests also spread north to San Francisco, where about 60 people were arrested on Sunday night, local time, including some children. The SAPD said buildings and a police car were vandalised, while two officers suffered non-life threatening injuries. In Los Angeles and other cities on Monday morning, union members marched to demand the release of David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union in California. Huerta was arrested on Friday as part of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation that prompted the protests. He was hurt in the arrest and taken briefly to a local hospital. In Washington, a group of about 300 marched past the Department of Justice and FBI headquarters, chanting: 'Free David now.' People carried banners that said: 'Tyranny or revolution' or 'Is the Constitution dead yet?' and 'They blame immigrations so you won't blame billionaires'. Lisa Blyth, a 47-year-old from Fairfax in the neighbouring state of Virginia, held a sign saying: 'We are all LA.' Loading 'I'm afraid for my country,' she said. 'Not so much because of the violence – because I feel like that kind of was inevitable – but I'm afraid of it not taking a turn for the better.' 'My hope is that if enough people can take a stand and not be afraid – be willing to face things like the tear gas and police - that hopefully we can make a change for the better and defeat this administration.' Blyth said she was upset after seeing the video of Tomasi being shot with a rubber bullet by police. 'It's unconscionable that they're doing it at all, but certainly against the press is an even greater escalation.'

The Age
a day ago
- The Age
‘I would do it': Trump says California governor should be arrested, as protests spread
The White House declined to comment on the incident and referred questions to the Los Angeles Police Department, which said it would issue a statement later on Monday. Nine owns this masthead. As protesters clashed with police and set fire to driverless Waymo cars in downtown Los Angeles, the political firestorm raged over Trump's decision to usurp Newsom's authority and deploy the California National Guard. Newsom and Democratic allies argued the decision inflamed tensions and turned what was a relatively small, controllable protest into violent riots in which dozens were arrested over the weekend. He also said Trump's deployment of the National Guard was illegal, and vowed to file a federal lawsuit. Responding to Trump's call for him to be arrested, Newsom said it crossed a line that he hoped would never be crossed in the US. 'This is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' he said. Trump, meanwhile, continued to defend his decision to deploy the National Guard, whose duties were largely limited to protecting federal government buildings. In a social media post, he said Los Angeles would otherwise have been 'completely obliterated' and that Bass and Newsom – whom he again called Newscum – should be thanking him. But Hillary Clinton, the former Democratic secretary of state who lost to Trump in 2016, said in a post on X: 'Trump's goal isn't to keep Californians safe. His goal is to cause chaos, because chaos is good for Trump.' Protests also spread north to San Francisco, where about 60 people were arrested on Sunday night, local time, including some children. The SAPD said buildings and a police car were vandalised, while two officers suffered non-life threatening injuries. In Los Angeles and other cities on Monday morning, union members marched to demand the release of David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union in California. Huerta was arrested on Friday as part of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation that prompted the protests. He was hurt in the arrest and taken briefly to a local hospital. In Washington, a group of about 300 marched past the Department of Justice and FBI headquarters, chanting: 'Free David now.' People carried banners that said: 'Tyranny or revolution' or 'Is the Constitution dead yet?' and 'They blame immigrations so you won't blame billionaires'. Lisa Blyth, a 47-year-old from Fairfax in the neighbouring state of Virginia, held a sign saying: 'We are all LA.' Loading 'I'm afraid for my country,' she said. 'Not so much because of the violence – because I feel like that kind of was inevitable – but I'm afraid of it not taking a turn for the better.' 'My hope is that if enough people can take a stand and not be afraid – be willing to face things like the tear gas and police - that hopefully we can make a change for the better and defeat this administration.' Blyth said she was upset after seeing the video of Tomasi being shot with a rubber bullet by police. 'It's unconscionable that they're doing it at all, but certainly against the press is an even greater escalation.'