Latest news with #AppealCourt
Business Times
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Times
Malaysian Court grants Anwar bid to pause civil lawsuit
[KUALA LUMPUR] A Malaysian Court of Appeal granted Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's application to temporarily pause a civil lawsuit against him by a former aide who alleges he was sexually assaulted in 2018. A court panel comprised three judges who decided to stay proceedings of the trial in a unanimous decision on Tuesday (Jun 10) that was read out by Appeal Court Judge Supang Lian. Anwar was appealing a High Court decision that had ruled that the trial would begin on June 16. He is separately appealing another court decision that dismisses a bid seeking clarity from the Federal Court whether a sitting prime minister can be sued. It's a reprieve for Anwar who years ago faced sodomy and abuse of power convictions – charges which he denied. The cases he said were politically motivated came in the wake of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, when he was deputy prime minister until his dismissal from cabinet. Yusoff Rawther, a former research aid to Anwar, filed his suit in 2021 accusing him of sexual assault in October 2018 while they were in the latter's residence in Kuala Lumpur. Anwar, who became prime minister in 2022, denies any wrongdoing. Yusoff is seeking special, general, aggravated and exemplary damages. Anwar wants the Federal Court to determine whether allowing the lawsuit to proceed would impair his ability to executive his duties as prime minister and undermine the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. He said last week the case was never about seeking personal immunity or escaping legal scrutiny, and that he would continue to carry out his responsibilities without distraction or compromise. BLOOMBERG
Irish Independent
23-05-2025
- Irish Independent
Grieving widower of late bishop ordered to give up home after he loses legal battle
An Appeal Court ruling has left the grieving widower of deceased rebel Catholic cleric Pat Buckley devastated.
CBC
20-05-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Chignecto Isthmus court case will not determine who should pay
Lawyers for the Nova Scotia government confirmed this week that they're not looking to the province's highest court to weigh in on a funding question that Premier Tim Houston wants answered about the Chignecto Isthmus. There has been a protracted dispute between Ottawa and the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick on the question of who should pay for work to bolster the isthmus against rising sea levels and increasingly severe storm surge caused by climate change. The provinces want the federal government to pay in full for a project that's been estimated to cost $650 million over 10 years, but Ottawa has agreed to pay just half. Meanwhile, the Nova Scotia government has asked the province's Appeal Court to give an opinion on jurisdictional responsibility for the isthmus — a narrow strip of land that connects Nova Scotia to New Brunswick and the rest of Canada. The case is being heard this week. 'Some confusion' "There was some confusion in the minds of the panel on that point," Chief Justice Michael Wood told lawyers at the outset of the hearing, referring to the funding dispute. Wood and two other Appeal Court judges heard some arguments related to the case earlier this year when the government of Canada tried to have the matter dismissed. Lawyers for the province said at that time they weren't looking for an answer on who should pay. Rather, the question is whether Ottawa has "exclusive legislative authority." However, just days after that initial hearing, Houston sent an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney — who had recently won the Liberal leadership — in which he contradicted his government's lawyers. "I am seeking confirmation that a government led by you will accept the decision of the court, should the court decide that paying for the isthmus is a federal responsibility," Houston wrote to Carney. Wood brought up the correspondence in court Tuesday. "I appreciate there may be some political aspects to that letter, but that's not the issue that we're being asked to decide in this reference — right?" "That's correct, justice," responded Jeremy Smith, a lawyer representing the government of Nova Scotia. 'A political football' The panel of justices pressed Smith and another lawyer for Nova Scotia, Michael Boyle, about why the province was asking for the court's opinion. Justice David Farrar questioned how useful it might be to determine that Ottawa has the sole ability to legislate on matters related to the isthmus. The lawyers wouldn't say what type of legislation Canada should bring forward or even if any new legislation is necessary. "So are you saying that you're asking this question of us so it can be a political football that you can use against the feds?" asked Farrar. "I certainly wouldn't call it a political football," responded Smith. He continued by saying there is "a certain amount of politics" involved in any provincial-federal dispute. Boyle said earlier in the hearing that the question was framed as "a pure question of law." The lawyers said an answer from the court would help further the dialogue between the two levels of government. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed this spring to split the cost of the project with Ottawa, but Houston said he only did so to "avoid delays," while still hoping that Ottawa would change its position. The arguments Boyle and Smith argued that Ottawa has sole legislative authority over the isthmus because of the importance of protecting the land for the sake of interprovincial trade. One of their core points harkened back hundreds of years to Nova Scotia's entry into Confederation. Boyle said Nova Scotia was hesitant to join the federation and was convinced to do so with the promise of an intercolonial railway. The lawyers said Canada is still obligated by those promises to take responsibility for protecting the CN rail line that runs over the isthmus. They also argued that the dams, dikes and aboiteaux that protect the isthmus from tidal inundation are an interconnected system that crosses Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and can't be managed by either province alone. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are interveners in the case. A lawyer for the government of New Brunswick also made submissions on Tuesday, reiterating many of the same arguments made by Nova Scotia. The hearing is expected to continue Wednesday with submissions from Prince Edward Island and the federal government.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Woman appeals against Southport tweet jail term
The wife of a Conservative councillor who was jailed after an online rant on the day of last year's Southport attacks "never" intended to incite violence, the Court of Appeal has heard. Lucy Connolly, from Northampton, used a social media post on 29 July to call for "mass deportation now" and urged followers to "set fire" to hotels housing asylum seekers. She is appealing against the sentence of two years and seven months she was given after she admitted inciting racial hatred. Supporters staged a demonstration outside the Appeal Court in London. The post came after three girls were stabbed and killed at a holiday club in Southport on the same date, sparking nationwide unrest. Giving evidence from HMP Drake Hall in Eccleshall in Staffordshire, Connolly told the Appeal Court when she initially wrote the post on X that she was "really angry, really upset" and "distressed that those children had died" and that she knew how the parents felt. The court heard that Connolly's son died tragically about 14 years ago, and that news of the murders in Southport had caused a resurgence of the anxiety caused by her son's death. Adam King, representing Connolly, asked if she had intended for anyone to set fire to asylum hotels, or "murder any politicians". She replied: "Absolutely not." When asked why she had deleted the post three and a half hours after publishing it, Connolly added: "I calmed myself down, and I know that wasn't an acceptable thing to say. "It wasn't the right thing to say; it wasn't what I wanted to happen." Connolly told the court that during discussions with her barrister at the crown court, she did not understand that by pleading guilty she was accepting that she intended to incite violence. She said: "When I wrote that tweet there had been no violence and it was never my intention to cause any." Her husband Ray Connolly had been a Conservative member of West Northamptonshire Council but lost his seat on 1 May. He remains on Northampton Town Council. The Appeal Court hearing continues. Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. Politician's wife jailed for X post gets appeal date MP calls for councillor to quit after wife jailed Tory politician's wife jailed for race hate post HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Irish Examiner
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
UK government says it will seek Supreme Court appeal over Sean Brown inquiry
The UK government has confirmed it will seek a Supreme Court appeal over a court ruling that ordered it to hold a public inquiry into the killing of GAA official Sean Brown. The statement from the Northern Ireland Office came after Appeal Court judges in Belfast affirmed an earlier High Court ruling compelling the government to hold a public inquiry. The Appeal Court judges said their final order compelling Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn to establish an inquiry would come into effect on June 2. Mr Benn had already signalled an intention to take the case to the Supreme Court. On Friday it was confirmed he would now be seeking leave to take the case to the Supreme Court following the Court of Appeal decision. Last month the Court of Appeal ruled that the ongoing failure to hold a public inquiry in the Brown case was unlawful. The judges deferred making a final order for four weeks to give Mr Benn space to consider his response. Earlier this week, he applied to the court to give him another four weeks for further consideration but the three judges, including Northern Ireland's Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan, proceeded to make their final determination on Friday. The courtroom in Belfast was packed with supporters of the Brown family as the order was confirmed by Dame Siobhan. Mr Brown's widow, Bridie, and her children, watched the proceedings from the front of the public gallery. Mr Brown, 61, the chairman of Bellaghy Wolfe Tones GAA Club in Co Derry, was ambushed, kidnapped and murdered by loyalist paramilitaries as he locked the gates of the club in May 1997. Sean Brown's daughter Clare Loughran speaks to reporters outside court (Liam McBurney/PA) No-one has ever been convicted of his killing. Preliminary inquest proceedings last year heard that in excess of 25 people had been linked by intelligence to the murder, including several state agents. It had also been alleged in court that surveillance of a suspect in the murder was temporarily stopped on the evening of the killing, only to resume again the following morning. The Northern Ireland Secretary contends the case involves a key constitutional principle of who should order public inquiries, the Government or the judiciary. A UK government spokesperson said: 'We acknowledge the court's decisions and now intend to seek permission to appeal from the Supreme Court because this judgment and the terms of the mandatory order raise matters of constitutional significance that go beyond this individual case. 'The court previously invited the Secretary of State to reflect on the judgment and has reiterated today that this process should continue. 'We will of course respond to the court on that issue in early June. 'This will not, however, delay our determination to repeal and replace the Legacy Act, and to implement mechanisms that are human-rights compliant.' We acknowledge the court's decisions and now intend to seek permission to appeal from the Supreme Court because this judgment and the terms of the mandatory order raise matters of constitutional significance that go beyond this individual case Earlier, outside court, Mr Brown's daughter Clare Loughran said a public inquiry was the only option open to Mr Benn as she reiterated her mother's plea to him not to take the family to the Supreme Court in London. 'We feel vindicated that we have completed the process here in this jurisdiction, and that the Lady Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal has not upheld the Secretary of State's decision on not giving us a public inquiry,' she said. Ms Loughran added: 'My mother stood in front of these microphones four weeks ago and appealed to the Secretary of State not to have to make her go to London, and that remains our position. 'She's an elderly lady. We have fought very long and very hard to try and get to the end point of this, which is that public inquiry to get to that truth. And that's all we want at this stage. 'We really appeal again to the Secretary of State. I appeal on my behalf, on behalf of my mother, to please do the right thing. Do not take us to London. Do not take this to the Supreme Court. Do not drag this out any longer.' The family of Mr Brown were applauded by a large crowd of supporters as they arrived at the Court of Appeal for Friday's hearing. Stormont First Minister Michelle O'Neill, Sinn Féin president Mary Lou McDonald and other party colleagues were among those who accompanied the Brown family as they approached the court building. SDLP MLAs Patsy McGlone and Justin McNulty were also among the political representatives present. Supporters of the family of GAA official Sean Brown applaud as they arrive at court (Liam McBurney/PA) Mr Benn first signalled his intention to seek leave for the Supreme Court appeal on Wednesday. It prompted strong criticism from the Brown family and their supporters. The Court of Appeal, as is routine practice, dismissed Mr Benn's application for leave to the Supreme Court on Friday. That placed the onus on Mr Benn to apply directly to the Supreme Court for leave to hear an appeal, which he has now confirmed he will do. Ms Loughran asked what the Government was seeking to 'hide'. She highlighted that her mother was now 87 and had already endured almost 60 court appearances. 'What are they trying to hide? What are they trying to stall this for further?' she asked. 'All she (her mother) wanted ever is to find out why. We are 10 days away from the 28th anniversary of my father's murder, the worst day of our lives, the most brutal thing that can happen to a really entirely innocent man. Why are they continuing to drag this through further? Let us get the truth.' First Minister of Northern Ireland Michelle O'Neill (left) and Sinn Fein president Mary Lou McDonald arrive at the Court of Appeal for Friday's hearing (Liam McBurney/PA) The Brown family's solicitor, Niall Murphy, questioned whether the government was intending to continue to break the law. He said the Court of Appeal had given a 'strong, firm, unambiguous and very clear order' compelling Mr Benn to establish a public inquiry. 'The position is now crystal clear,' Mr Murphy added. 'The Secretary of State has a binary choice: either comply with the law or continue to break the law. And, as a society, we should all hope that those who make our laws will not be those who will now break our laws.' Ms O'Neill urged Mr Benn to 'get on with it' and order a public inquiry. 'I think he's living in a fool's paradise if he thinks that the Brown family are going to go away, or if the community of Bellaghy are going to go away, or if the people right across the north (are going to go away),' said the Sinn Féin vice president. 'You've seen how many people came along to support this family yet again in the courts today. The court ruling is crystal clear. Get on with it. Do the public inquiry. Do the right thing. 'Have some degree of decency and stop putting Bridie Brown through this day and daily.' Mr McGlone said Friday's hearing was a significant moment in the family's pursuit of justice. 'I have stood with the Brown family at court on many occasions over the years and today was particularly moving as the family were given a rapturous applause upon arrival,' said the SDLP Mid Ulster MLA. 'This stands in stark contrast to the way they have been treated by the UK government who are using every dirty trick in the book to stop them uncovering the truth of what happened to their husband and father. 'To try to drag Bridie Brown to London for a Supreme Court hearing all so they can protect the dark forces in state agencies who helped carry out this murder should shame this government. 'It flies totally in the face of their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.'
