Latest news with #CoronersandJusticeAct2009
News18
05-08-2025
- News18
'...Of Natural Causes': British Coroner's Report Confirms Reason Behind Sunjay Kapur's Death
Last Updated: The Surrey Coroner's office stated that the investigation into Sunjay Kapur's death "has revealed that he died of natural causes". Businessman Sunjay Kapur, who died last month while playing polo in London, died of natural causes, British medical authorities said in a letter to his wife, Priya Sachdev Kapur, on Sunday. The Surrey Coroner's office stated that the investigation into Sunjay Kapur's death 'has revealed that he died of natural causes" and listed left ventricular hypertrophy and ischemic heart disease as the causes of death. The left ventricular hypertrophy is a condition in which the muscular wall of the heart's left ventricle thickens, making it harder for blood to be pumped effectively. The condition often develops when the heart is working harder than normal or because of higher blood pressure. Meanwhile, ischemic heart disease involves a condition in which the heart muscle doesn't receive enough blood and oxygen, usually due to narrowed arteries. The coroner's office in its report, mentioned, 'In light of this, the investigation has now been discontinued pursuant to Section 4 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009… there will be no need for an inquest." NDTV reported. They added that Rani Kapur's subsequent claims – that he was 'murdered as part of a transnational conspiracy' are bewildering. Notably, Rani Kapur last week wrote to Surrey Police and said she has 'credible and concerning evidence… that suggests that her son's death may not have been accidental or natural, but may have involved foul play…" Rani Kapur's letter gained massive public attention, pointing towards a family dispute. This started with her e-mail to the board of Sona Comstar demanding that it postpone an annual general meeting. She identified herself as the 'majority shareholder of the Sona Group', which includes Sona Comstar and Sona BLW Precision Forgings Ltd and alleged she had been 'compelled to sign documents" while she was grieving for her son. She also questioned the decision to appoint 'certain people (i.e., Priya Sachdev Kapur)". In fact, she also highlighted 'gross illegalities" in company affairs. Soon after Rani Kapur's statement, the company responded and stated that Ms Kapur is not a shareholder, majority or otherwise, and had not been one since 2019. The company said in May 2019 a 'declaration of significant beneficial ownership" named Sunjay Kapur as the 'sole beneficial owner…" The board also denied her claims that she was forced to sign documents behind closed doors. 'No documents had been signed or obtained from her since Sunjay Kapur's death," the board said. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
05-08-2025
- NDTV
After Mother's "Murder" Claim, Sunjay Kapur's Cause Of Death Confirmed
New Delhi: Businessman Sunjay Kapur - who died last month while playing polo in London, prompting a saas vs bahu power struggle for control of the Rs 30,000 crore Sona Group - died of natural causes, British medical authorities said in a letter to his wife, Priya Sachdev Kapur, on Sunday. The Surrey Coroner's office said the investigation "has revealed he (i.e., Sunjay Kapur) died of natural causes" and listed left ventricular hypertrophy and ischemic heart disease as the causes of death. The former, or LVH, is a condition in which the muscular wall of the heart's left ventricle thickens, making it harder for blood to be pumped effectively. The condition often develops when the heart is working harder than normal or because of higher blood pressure. In the latter case, which is also called coronary artery disease, the heart muscle doesn't receive enough blood and oxygen, usually due to narrowed arteries. The most common cause is atherosclerosis, i.e., fats, cholesterol, and other substances collecting in and on the artery wall. "In light of this, the investigation has now been discontinued pursuant to Section 4 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009... there will be no need for an inquest," the coroner's office said. Sources close to Priya Kapur told NDTV this proves there was no 'foul play' and that the report had been shared with Rani Kapur, Mr Kapur's mother, days ago. Her subsequent claims - that he was 'murdered as part of a transnational conspiracy' are bewildering, the sources also said. Sunjay Kapur with his mother, Rani Kapur (File). Last week Rani Kapur wrote to Surrey Police and said she has "credible and concerning evidence... that suggests his death may not have been accidental or natural, but may have involved foul play..." READ | 'My Son May Have Been Murdered': Rani Kapur's Big Claim She spoke of records that "point to forgery, dubious asset transfers and legal filings, (and) indications of collusion between individuals who stood to gain financially (i.e., Priya Kapur) from his death. "... his death may have been facilitated or orchestrated as part of a transnational conspiracy, with the involvement of individuals and entities in the UK, India and maybe the US," Ms Kapur had written. That letter was the newest twist in an increasingly public family affair that kickstarted with her e-mail to the board of Sona Comstar demanding it postpone an annual general meeting. She identified herself as the 'majority shareholder of the Sona Group', which includes Sona Comstar and Sona BLW Precision Forgings Ltd and alleged she had been "compelled to sign documents" while grieving for her son. READ | Family Drama, Power Play After Businessman Sunjay Kapur's Death She questioned the decision to appoint "certain people (i.e., Priya Sachdev Kapur)", and said their claim to speak for the family was based on "documents executed by me under coercion". She said she had information that highlighted "gross illegalities" in company affairs. 'Rani Kapur Not A Shareholder' Hours later the company responded. In a market filing Sona BLW said Ms Kapur is not a shareholder, majority or otherwise, and had not been one since 2019. The company said in May 2019 a "declaration of significant beneficial ownership" named Sunjay Kapur as the "sole beneficial owner..." READ | Sunjay Kapur's Mum Not A Shareholder, Says Company Amid Family Feud And on her claim about being "forced to sign documents behind locked doors", the board said no documents had been signed or obtained from her since Sunjay Kapur's death. READ | The third chapter in this drama played out last week. Sona Comstar sent Ms Kapur a cease-and-desist letter, saying her words and allegations had defamed the company. Ms Sachdev Kapur has not, so far, publicly commented on this matter.
The Independent
10-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Sentencing Council warns against guidance being ‘dictated' by ministers
The Sentencing Council has warned against guidance to judges being 'dictated' by ministers after the Justice Secretary threatened to change the law following claims of 'two-tier' justice. New guidance for judges to consider a criminal's ethnicity before deciding their punishment prompted Shabana Mahmood to write to the independent body to make clear her 'displeasure' and call for the changes to be reconsidered. The Sentencing Council published new principles for courts to follow when imposing community and custodial sentences, including whether to suspend jail time, last Wednesday. The updated guidance, which comes into force from April, says a pre-sentence report would usually be necessary before handing out punishment for someone of an ethnic, cultural or faith minority, alongside other groups such as young adults aged 18 to 25, women and pregnant women. But Ms Mahmood wrote: 'A pre-sentence report can be instrumental in assisting courts in the determination of their sentence. But the access to one should not be determined by an offender's ethnicity, culture or religion.' In a letter to Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, Ms Mahmood said she was considering whether policy decisions such as this should be made by the Sentencing Council and what role MPs should play. But Lord Justice Davis replied that the Sentencing Council preserves the 'critical' position of the independent judiciary in relation to sentencing. He said: 'I respectfully question whether the inclusion of a list of cohorts in the imposition guideline was a policy decision of any significance. 'However, whatever the import of the decision, it related to an issue of sentencing.' He further warned: 'In criminal proceedings where the offender is the subject of prosecution by the state, the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender. 'If sentencing guidelines of whatever kind were to be dictated in any way by ministers of the Crown, this principle would be breached.' The council's chief said he was taking legal advice on whether the Justice Secretary's power under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to ask for guidelines to be revised could be applied in this circumstance, and if it could, it will be considered at the body's next meeting. 'This is not a power which ever has been used to ask the council to revise a guideline immediately after it has been published and which has been the subject of detailed consultation with the Lord Chancellor,' Lord Justice Davis said. Ms Mahmood had said 'no minister' in this Government approved of the guidance or was involved in the consultation. The previous government was also consulted on the change during the consultation period between November 2023 to February 2024. Lord Justice Davis said in response that there were 150 responses to the consultation on the new guidance, including from the then-minister for sentencing, with 'no concern expressed about the term now under debate'. Of the new guidance, the chairman added there is 'good evidence' of a disparity in sentence outcomes between white offenders and those of an ethnic minority for some offences. 'Why this disparity exists remains unclear,' he said. 'The council's view is that providing a sentencer with as much information as possible about the offender is one means by which such disparity might be addressed. 'I do not accept the premise of your objection to the relevant part of the list of cohorts for whom a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary. 'I have seen it suggested that the guideline instructs sentencers to impose a more lenient sentence on those from ethnic minorities than white offenders. Plainly that suggestion is completely wrong.'
The Independent
10-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Justice secretary set for showdown with judges over sentencing guidelines
Justice secretary Shabana Mahmood is set for a confrontation with the Sentencing Council later this week after they wrote to her warning her against 'dictating' to judges over new measures which she fears will create a 'two tier' legal system. A spokesperson for Ms Mahmood has confirmed that a meeting is set to go ahead with the Sentencing Council on Thursday where she will make clear her displeasure at new guidance which could lead to lighter sentences for some based on ethnicity and gender. The Labour minister is in rare agreement with her right wing Tory shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick who raised the issue last week after the Sentencing Council ignored the views of ministers from the previous government to go ahead with the new guidelines. But after expressing her own disapproval of the guidelines, the Sentencing Council, which is independent of government, angrily put down Ms Mahmood's objections this week and rejected claims it was creating a 'two tier system'. New guidance for judges to consider a criminal's ethnicity before deciding their punishment prompted Ms Mahmood to write to the independent body to make clear her "displeasure" and call for the changes to be reconsidered. The Sentencing Council published new principles for courts to follow when imposing community and custodial sentences, including whether to suspend jail time, last Wednesday. The updated guidance, which comes into force from April, says a pre-sentence report would usually be necessary before handing out punishment for someone of an ethnic, cultural or faith minority, alongside other groups such as young adults aged 18 to 25, women and pregnant women. Ms Mahmood wrote: "A pre-sentence report can be instrumental in assisting courts in the determination of their sentence. But the access to one should not be determined by an offender's ethnicity, culture or religion." In a letter to Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, Ms Mahmood said she was considering whether policy decisions such as this should be made by the Sentencing Council and what role MPs should play. But Lord Justice Davis replied that the Sentencing Council preserves the "critical" position of the independent judiciary in relation to sentencing. He said: "I respectfully question whether the inclusion of a list of cohorts in the imposition guideline was a policy decision of any significance. "However, whatever the import of the decision, it is related to an issue of sentencing." He further warned: "In criminal proceedings where the offender is the subject of prosecution by the state, the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender. "If sentencing guidelines of whatever kind were to be dictated in any way by ministers of the Crown, this principle would be breached." The council's chief said he was taking legal advice on whether the Justice Secretary's power under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to ask for guidelines to be revised could be applied in this circumstance, and if it could, it will be considered at the body's next meeting. "This is not a power which ever has been used to ask the council to revise a guideline immediately after it has been published and which has been the subject of detailed consultation with the Lord Chancellor," Lord Justice Davis said. Ms Mahmood had said "no minister" in this government approved of the guidance or was involved in the consultation. The previous government was also consulted on the change during the consultation period between November 2023 to February 2024. Lord Justice Davis said in response that there were 150 responses to the consultation on the new guidance, including from the then-minister for sentencing, with "no concern expressed about the term now under debate". Of the new guidance, the chairman added there is "good evidence" of a disparity in sentence outcomes between white offenders and those of an ethnic minority for some offences. "Why this disparity exists remains unclear," he said. "The council's view is that providing a sentencer with as much information as possible about the offender is one means by which such disparity might be addressed. "I do not accept the premise of your objection to the relevant part of the list of cohorts for whom a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary. "I have seen it suggested that the guideline instructs sentencers to impose a more lenient sentence on those from ethnic minorities than white offenders. Plainly that suggestion is completely wrong." But Ms Mahmood had support from the influential think tank Policy Exchange. David Spencer, head of crime and justice at Policy Exchange said: 'The Sentencing Council's letter to Shabana Mahmood is remarkable. 'The chair rejects call to amend the guidelines – and defends prioritising Pre-Sentence Reports for ethnic minority criminals. 'The Justice Secretary cannot let this stand. There is no place for two-tier justice.'
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sentencing Council warns against guidance being ‘dictated' by ministers
The Sentencing Council has warned against guidance to judges being 'dictated' by ministers after the Justice Secretary threatened to change the law following claims of 'two-tier' justice. New guidance for judges to consider a criminal's ethnicity before deciding their punishment prompted Shabana Mahmood to write to the independent body to make clear her 'displeasure' and call for the changes to be reconsidered. The Sentencing Council published new principles for courts to follow when imposing community and custodial sentences, including whether to suspend jail time, last Wednesday. The updated guidance, which comes into force from April, says a pre-sentence report would usually be necessary before handing out punishment for someone of an ethnic, cultural or faith minority, alongside other groups such as young adults aged 18 to 25, women and pregnant women. But Ms Mahmood wrote: 'A pre-sentence report can be instrumental in assisting courts in the determination of their sentence. But the access to one should not be determined by an offender's ethnicity, culture or religion.' In a letter to Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, Ms Mahmood said she was considering whether policy decisions such as this should be made by the Sentencing Council and what role MPs should play. But Lord Justice Davis replied that the Sentencing Council preserves the 'critical' position of the independent judiciary in relation to sentencing. He said: 'I respectfully question whether the inclusion of a list of cohorts in the imposition guideline was a policy decision of any significance. 'However, whatever the import of the decision, it related to an issue of sentencing.' He further warned: 'In criminal proceedings where the offender is the subject of prosecution by the state, the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender. 'If sentencing guidelines of whatever kind were to be dictated in any way by ministers of the Crown, this principle would be breached.' The council's chief said he was taking legal advice on whether the Justice Secretary's power under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to ask for guidelines to be revised could be applied in this circumstance, and if it could, it will be considered at the body's next meeting. 'This is not a power which ever has been used to ask the council to revise a guideline immediately after it has been published and which has been the subject of detailed consultation with the Lord Chancellor,' Lord Justice Davis said. Ms Mahmood had said 'no minister' in this Government approved of the guidance or was involved in the consultation. The previous government was also consulted on the change during the consultation period between November 2023 to February 2024. Lord Justice Davis said in response that there were 150 responses to the consultation on the new guidance, including from the then-minister for sentencing, with 'no concern expressed about the term now under debate'. Of the new guidance, the chairman added there is 'good evidence' of a disparity in sentence outcomes between white offenders and those of an ethnic minority for some offences. 'Why this disparity exists remains unclear,' he said. 'The council's view is that providing a sentencer with as much information as possible about the offender is one means by which such disparity might be addressed. 'I do not accept the premise of your objection to the relevant part of the list of cohorts for whom a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary. 'I have seen it suggested that the guideline instructs sentencers to impose a more lenient sentence on those from ethnic minorities than white offenders. Plainly that suggestion is completely wrong.'
