Australian court backs women's case in Qatar strip-search scandal
The women were among 13 Australians subjected to invasive gynecological examinations in October 2020 after a newborn baby was found abandoned in an airport bathroom. The incident occurred across 10 Qatar Airways flights and sparked international outrage, damaging diplomatic ties between Australia and Qatar.
In 2022, five of the affected women launched legal action in Australia against Qatar Airways, MATAR (which operates Doha airport), and Qatar's Civil Aviation Authority. They alleged violations under the Montreal Convention, which governs airline liability, along with claims of negligence, assault, and false imprisonment.
The women say they were taken off their Sydney-bound flight at gunpoint, ordered to remove their underwear, and subjected to non-consensual physical examinations by a nurse inside ambulances on the tarmac. They are seeking damages for severe psychological harm, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
In 2023, Justice John Halley of the Federal Court dismissed the case against Qatar Airways, arguing it had no reasonable chance of success. He also ruled that Qatar's Civil Aviation Authority was immune from prosecution under foreign state protections.
However, the Full Federal Court has now ruled that the case against Qatar Airways should proceed. The judges said the matter raised complex legal issues that couldn't be decided at the early dismissal stage.
"Whether or not the claims fall within the scope of the Montreal Convention is a complex issue," the court stated. "It is not suitable for summary dismissal."
As a result, the lawsuit against Qatar Airways and MATAR will move forward, and both companies have been ordered to pay the women's appeal costs.
Lawyer Damian Sturzaker of Marque Lawyers, who represents the women, welcomed the decision. "Our clients endured a traumatic experience that night in Doha. They deserve their day in court and compensation for their suffering," he said.
The court ruling marks a significant step in the women's long fight for accountability, nearly four years after the controversial incident that drew worldwide condemnation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada News.Net
9 hours ago
- Canada News.Net
Australian court backs women's case in Qatar strip-search scandal
SYDNEY, Australia: Five Australian women who say they were forcibly removed from a Qatar Airways flight and strip-searched by armed guards at Doha's Hamad Airport have won the right to sue the airline, after Australia's Federal Court overturned an earlier ruling on July 24. The women were among 13 Australians subjected to invasive gynecological examinations in October 2020 after a newborn baby was found abandoned in an airport bathroom. The incident occurred across 10 Qatar Airways flights and sparked international outrage, damaging diplomatic ties between Australia and Qatar. In 2022, five of the affected women launched legal action in Australia against Qatar Airways, MATAR (which operates Doha airport), and Qatar's Civil Aviation Authority. They alleged violations under the Montreal Convention, which governs airline liability, along with claims of negligence, assault, and false imprisonment. The women say they were taken off their Sydney-bound flight at gunpoint, ordered to remove their underwear, and subjected to non-consensual physical examinations by a nurse inside ambulances on the tarmac. They are seeking damages for severe psychological harm, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. In 2023, Justice John Halley of the Federal Court dismissed the case against Qatar Airways, arguing it had no reasonable chance of success. He also ruled that Qatar's Civil Aviation Authority was immune from prosecution under foreign state protections. However, the Full Federal Court has now ruled that the case against Qatar Airways should proceed. The judges said the matter raised complex legal issues that couldn't be decided at the early dismissal stage. "Whether or not the claims fall within the scope of the Montreal Convention is a complex issue," the court stated. "It is not suitable for summary dismissal." As a result, the lawsuit against Qatar Airways and MATAR will move forward, and both companies have been ordered to pay the women's appeal costs. Lawyer Damian Sturzaker of Marque Lawyers, who represents the women, welcomed the decision. "Our clients endured a traumatic experience that night in Doha. They deserve their day in court and compensation for their suffering," he said. The court ruling marks a significant step in the women's long fight for accountability, nearly four years after the controversial incident that drew worldwide condemnation.
National Post
13 hours ago
- National Post
Letters: Law and disorder in Hockey Canada verdicts, Freedom Convoy sentencing
Re: Gasps in court as all five players acquitted in Hockey Canada sexual assault trial — Jane Sims, July 24 Article content While Superior Justice Maria Carroccia ruled that the behaviour of the five Hockey Canada players didn't constitute sexual assault, it's very clear that what happened in that hotel room in London, Ont., in 2018 was unsavoury and unbefitting of role models. Hockey Canada needs to do a lot more to promote appropriate behaviour off the ice. In the meantime, may this legal saga be a cautionary tale to all young male hockey players — and their admirers. No one, not the players, the complainant or Hockey Canada, comes out looking good. Article content Article content Article content It's unbelievable that the government of Canada would attempt to make an example of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber by calling for seven- and eight-year sentences respectively for helping organize a peaceful convoy protest. Article content Canadian justice would be better served by the government fixing the revolving door of criminal offenders getting bail instantly, frequently, and being sentenced lightly. Article content The heavy-handed prosecution of Lich and Barber is obviously meant to chill any future protest of government policy that citizens disagree with. This stands in direct contrast with a government that proudly proclaims the right to peaceful protest, such as when anti-Israel groups disrupt traffic, intimidate Christmas shoppers in a mall, or menacingly appear in a Jewish neighbourhood. Article content Article content Article content Tamara Lich and Chris Barber and other honest, hard-working Canadians gave up their time and their work and drove thousands of miles, at their own expense, to reach out to their government, in a peaceful manner, to try to fix a problem that was preventing them from bringing needed products to Canadians. Article content They camped outside the Parliament buildings for one purpose only: to be heard, to exercise their Canadian right to reach out to their government for help, and they brought their children to witness democracy in action. Article content Except, they weren't heard. The prime minister dismissed them cavalierly and refused to listen to their concerns, or send anyone else to listen and address them. Had he done so, the protest would have been over, and everyone could have gone home, happy to have had their concerns addressed. It only droned on for three weeks because the government continued in its refusal to give them a hearing. Article content If anybody is to be sentenced for mischief, it should be our former PM, Justin Trudeau.
CTV News
a day ago
- CTV News
The U.S. House is looking into the Epstein investigation. Here's what could happen next
Audrey Strauss, acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, points to a photo of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, during a news conference in New York on July 2, 2020. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File) WASHINGTON — A key U.S. House committee is looking into the investigation of the late Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking crimes, working to subpoena U.S. President Donald Trump's Department of Justice for files in the case as well as hold a deposition of Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington. The committee's moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn out process. Here's what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein's death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting. Subpoena for the Epstein files Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its August recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena. The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing 'un-redacted Epstein files.' As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter. Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft. The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said he told the speaker that 'Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that's what the American people want.' Will Congress depose Ghislaine Maxwell? Comer has said that he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking. In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if it could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she will likely be asked about. Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted 1 1/2 days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week. Democrats, however, warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted. 'We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,' Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the oversight committee, told reporters this week. The House wants to subpoena others Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Bill Clinton, former Sen. Hillary Clinton as well as the former attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under George W. Bush. It's not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will actually play out, but Comer has said, 'We're going to move quickly on that.' How will Pam Bondi comply? Trump is no stranger to fighting against congressional investigations and subpoenas. And as with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information. Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena 'depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.' If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi's response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress. It's practically unheard of for one political party to vote to hold one of its own members in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has also cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP. Growing pressure on the Trump administration for disclosure Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation. 'We can't allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,' said Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., a committee member. The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files. Stephen Groves, The Associated Press
