Latest news with #CommonLaw
ITV News
14-07-2025
- ITV News
Two men arrested for malicious damage after offensive language and swastikas painted across Jersey
Two men have been arrested on suspicion of malicious damage in Jersey after St Helier was defaced with dozens of swastikas and highly offensive language. The graffiti - which appeared in public parks, a bus stop, on toilets and the door to an all-girls primary school - included racist and homophobic slurs. The island's Chief Minister, Deputy Lyndon Farnham, strongly condemned the "cowardly and destructive act" which was first reported on Friday morning (11 July). In a statement on Monday, the States of Jersey Police said: "We have identified two males in connection with the graffiti incidents that occurred on Friday 11 July. "This afternoon, we arrested a 51-year-old man and a 37-year-old man on suspicion of malicious damage under Common Law. "The graffiti included multiple instances of offensive and abusive content, including swastikas and hateful language, as well as other markings that appeared random or without clear meaning." The affected areas have since been cleaned by local people and government teams.
Sunday World
13-07-2025
- Sunday World
Man charged with murder of pensioner Michael Hayes in Limerick
Philip Ambrose (43) did not reply when charged with murdering Michael Hayes (71) gardaí told Limerick District Court. A man appeared before a special court sitting on Saturday night charged with the murder of a pensioner in Limerick last Thursday. Philip Ambrose (43) did not reply when charged with murdering Michael Hayes (71) gardaí told Limerick District Court. Mr Ambrose, of no fixed address, and who appeared in court dressed in a dark top and pants and a grey T-shirt, did not speak during the brief hearing before Judge Alec Gabbett. Garda Aoife Quinn told the court she arrested, charged and cautioned Mr Ambrose in respect of murdering Mr Hayes. Mr Ambrose was arrested by gardaí on Friday morning, a few hours after Mr Hayes was allegedly attacked near his home in Limerick City Centre, around 11.30pm last Thursday. Mr Hayes was found with critical injuries at St Michael's Court, Watergate, and despite the best efforts of paramedics and doctors he was pronounced dead at University Hospital Limerick last Friday. Garda Quinn said she arrested Mr Ambrose at Henry Street garda station at 6.35pm on Saturday for the purpose of charging him with the murder of Mr Hayes, contrary to Common Law. The murder is alleged to have occurred at St Michael's Court, Watergate, Limerick city, a block of apartments where Mr Hayes had been living. Garda Quinn gave evidence that Mr Ambrose 'made no reply to the charge after caution'. Mr Ambrose's solicitor, Turlough Herbert, Herbert & Co Solicitors, Limerick, told the court that he was not applying for bail. The solicitor said the question of bail did not arise as bail applications in respect of a murder charge can only be made before the High Court. Mr Herbert made an application before the court for legal aid on behalf of the accused and said Mr Ambrose was in receipt of disability allowance. Judge Gabbett acceded the application and granted Mr Ambrose free legal aid. The judge ordered that a psychiatric evaluation be conducted in respect of Mr Ambrose. Judge Gabbett remanded Mr Ambrose in custody to Limerick Prison, to appear via video-link before Limerick District Court again on Tuesday July 15. Michael Hayes News in 90 Seconds - Sunday July 13
HKFP
12-07-2025
- Politics
- HKFP
So soft resistance is not a legal concept? Why this is a worrying thought
One does not wish to seem ungrateful, but the enduring mystery of the hour – exactly what do officials mean by 'soft resistance' – has not been much clarified by the secretary for justice, who offered a definition last month. Soft resistance, said Paul Lam, has three main elements: making false or misleading statements, expressing them irrationally with emotional bias, and having the intention to create misunderstandings about the Chinese or Hong Kong governments and their policies. This looks like an extension of the law on subversion, already unmoored from its Common Law attachment to the provocation of violence. If this were the case, it would still leave a variety of tricky questions. For example, would sincere belief in the truth of the statement complained of be a defence? But Mr Lam scotched this notion by adding that 'methods of soft resistance may not always be illegal, but that did not mean they did not harm society.' He also said that although the term was hard to define the government would not use it arbitrarily. 'You can say it is a political term,' he mused. 'Not all issues in society should be addressed by legal means. [Legal means] are also not always the most effective way of handling [matters].' This brings us to a rather alarming question: What non-legal means is the government proposing to use? A few reminders: We have repeatedly been assured that freedom of expression continues to be protected in Hong Kong. Both the Basic Law and the National Security Law reiterate the point, which is often also made by officials. Anyone who complains about apparent infringements will be referred to the relevant part of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, which permits exceptions to protect – put briefly – reputations, public order (including national security) and public decency. But there is one condition attached to these exceptions: They must be 'provided by law.' That means that if a person engages in soft resistance, deplorable though that may be, using methods which are not illegal, then he or she is exercising the right to self-expression and is entitled to Mr Lam's protection while doing so. The answer to soft resistance that does not break the law is, of course, soft repression. This could take the form of counterarguments, pointing out untruths, denouncing irrational language and correcting misinterpretations of government policies. This should not be too difficult. The government has a whole department devoted to putting its version of events before the public. RTHK is at its service, and most of our surviving media take pride in doing more than justice to the government line. The answer to erroneous speech is, or should be, correct speech. Yet somehow, I do not think this was on the mind of the numerous senior officials who thought a 28th Handover anniversary speech was a good opportunity to denounce the evils of soft resistance and promise to extirpate it. Rosanna Law, the secretary for culture, art and tourism, for example, promised to step up scrutiny before allowing funding or the use of venues for shows. Other issuers of permits of various kinds are apparently putting their shoulders to the wheel. Of late, we learn that restaurants can lose their licences, social workers and teachers can be drummed out of their professions. Some people cannot run a bookshop without entertaining a stream of visitors from government departments, citing anonymous complaints about hygiene, fire safety, business regulations or whatever. We may have a government which, as Mr Lam said, welcomes criticism, but it is not very good at looking like that. The problem with this sort of thing is that after a while it makes people suspicious. Maybe the venue you wanted to hire really does have an air-conditioning problem. Who knows? The Lord moves in mysterious ways and routinely refuses to discuss individual cases. Recently the Inland Revenue Department resumed sending me annual tax returns. In normal times I would put this down to a lucrative one-off freelance gig in 2023 after which the employer very properly filed the usual form reporting how much it paid me. As it happened, though, this sudden renewal of interest in my finances coincided with several stories about news media and individual reporters being asked for large tax payments they did not owe. So an innocent bit of bureaucratic routine looks … fishy.
Irish Examiner
07-07-2025
- Irish Examiner
Cork court awaits psychiatric report for man accused of his grandmother's manslaughter
A psychiatric report will be necessary in the case against a 38-year-old man accused of the unlawful killing of his grandmother in Carrigaline in February. Brian Nnamdi Ogbo appeared at Cork District Court on Monday by video link from prison on the manslaughter charge which states that on February 25, 2025, at 17 Garrydhu Drive, Kilmoney Road, Carrigaline, County Cork, he did unlawfully kill Stella Ejiatu Nnadi, contrary to Common Law. Shane Collins-Daly, solicitor, said a psychiatric report had been directed but was not before the court. 'Such a report is necessary. Issues may arise around fitness to plead and whether he was in a capable state of mind at the time of the offence,' Mr Collins-Daly said. The solicitor added that a book of evidence would be necessary. On the application of Sergeant Aisling Murphy, Judge John King adjourned the case against Brian Nnamdi Ogbo, who was living at the Kilmoney Road address at the time, until July 21. Detective Garda Tom Delaney testified during the original objection to bail that family members informed gardaí that Brian Ogbo suffers from schizophrenia and that he allegedly produced a knife during the assault. 'It was alleged that he broke into the upstairs bathroom where his grandmother was located and that he dragged her out of the bathroom. He dragged her downstairs. She was off her feet and being dragged headfirst down the stairs and pushed out of the house. 'Nobody required hospitalisation at the time of the occurrence. However, Stella Nnamdi deteriorated and was subsequently taken by ambulance to Cork University Hospital on Tuesday, February 25, and died later that afternoon,' Det. Garda Delaney said. Read More Man charged with assault of his grandmother at their Cork home faces new charge of manslaughter
Scotsman
07-07-2025
- Scotsman
Value of life depends upon side of the Border
Thomas Mitchell on the huge difference between fatal accident damages in Scotland and England Sign up to our Scotsman Money newsletter, covering all you need to know to help manage your money. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Even after the Act of Union in 1707, Scotland and England maintained separate and distinct legal traditions. Over the centuries that have passed since, Scots Law and English Law have evolved differently. The mixed legal system of Scotland combines elements of civil law while taking influence from the Roman Empire and Common Law elements. English Law, on the other hand, was historically a Common Law system, developed through years of judicial decisions rather than Statutes. In the modern era, both systems now find the most authoritative law in the form of Statutory Legislation, comprising Acts of the respective Parliaments north and south of the Border. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad These stark differences are highly prevalent when it comes to the assessment of damages in fatal accidents awards. In Scotland, under the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011, there are two types of awards; loss of support, based on financial dependency and loss of society, which compensates for the grief and loss of a relationship. A wide group of relatives can claim in Scotland; spouses, siblings, parents, grandparents, civil partners, etc. Focus is very much on the deceased's immediate family and closeness of the relationship to the deceased. There are calls for English law to line up with Scots law when it comes to bereavement damages, says Thomas Mitchell In England, dependency claims take the place of loss of support claims and bereavement damages take the place of loss of society claims. There is a more restricted class of relative who can claim. For example, siblings under English Law cannot bring a bereavement claim. So, what is the value of a life? While no amount of compensation can even hope to properly qualify the loss of a close familial relationship, the sum entitled relatives can claim in England, according to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, is fixed at £15,120. In Scotland, there is no fixed amount and judicial or jury discretion is the barometer. Awards for parents trend towards the £100,000+ mark, children £80,000+, siblings £20,000+ and grandparents £10,000+. But there is no upper or lower limit, and the focus is very much on the relationship that existed with the deceased. In Scotland, an assessment of damages is done on a case-by-case basis and the approach is tailored to individual circumstances. In England, a rigid, out-of-date statutory regime is applied and the bereavement award is not tailored to individual circumstances. The problem with these polar opposite approaches is that it creates an opportunity for exploitation. An attraction exists for insurance companies and others faced with defending such claims, and the lawyers who represent them to find a way to have English Law applied to fatal accidents which occur in Scotland. An insurer can save thousands on the cost of fatal claims if such an argument succeeds. For the grieving family, it means protracted litigation and uncertainty at a time when they are bereaved and should be supported. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There have been calls for urgent reform. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers continues to campaign against 'token' bereavement damages in England and Wales, calling for the Scottish Law approach to be mirrored throughout the UK. There surely cannot be any valid reason why a UK bereaved family member is treated so differently depending on locus or residency. This issue is unlikely to go away anytime soon, but with modern family life being more diverse than ever before, perhaps it's time for England to 'get with the times' when it comes to bereavement awards.
