Latest news with #RoyalCourtsofJustice
Glasgow Times
11 hours ago
- General
- Glasgow Times
Criminal cases review body ‘must win back trust' as interim chairwoman announced
Dame Vera Baird KC will become the interim chairwoman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which has been heavily criticised for its handling of the Andrew Malkinson case, one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history. The barrister will take up the post from June 9 until December 8 next year, and is tasked with carrying out an urgent review into the running of the independent body and making sure lessons have been learnt from previous cases. Andrew Malkinson outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London after being cleared by the Court of Appeal in 2023 (Jordan Pettitt/PA) The independent body is currently tasked with reviewing the convictions of serial child killer Lucy Letby. Announcing the move on Tuesday, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood told MPs: 'In recent years the commission has lost the trust of the public. 'It must now win it back. 'So today I have appointed Dame Vera Baird, a former victims commissioner, to be its interim chair. 'She will review the commission, its governance and leadership and ensure it delivers once more for those who have been victims of injustice.' Her appointment comes after former chairwoman Helen Pitcher resigned in January following Mr Malkinson's case but claimed she had been scapegoated. Mr Malkinson served 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, and was knocked back twice by the CCRC until his legal team carried out crucial DNA testing that was then repeated by the commission and led to his release. A review found that he could have been released 10 years earlier if the CCRC had obtained new DNA evidence as early as 2009, and thousands of cases are being reviewed in the wake of the bungled handling of the case. Last month, the Commons Justice Committee also warned that the position of the current chief executive of the CCRC, Karen Kneller, is no longer tenable. MPs said in a report it follows 'unpersuasive' evidence from her on the CCRC's challenges and response to public criticisms in April, and concerns on the performance of the review body. On her new role, Dame Vera said: 'It is vital the public can have confidence in an organisation whose constitutional importance is so central to a fair and just system. 'I look forward to working alongside the many hardworking and dedicated members of staff to restore that confidence, ensuring recommendations stemming from multiple reviews over the last decade are being effectively implemented, as well as identifying further areas for improvement.' A CCRC spokesperson said: 'Dame Vera brings decades of experience in the criminal justice system and a strong commitment to ensuring justice for all. 'Everyone at the CCRC looks forward to working with her to continue our mission to find, investigate and send potential miscarriages of justice back to the courts.'
Newsweek
11 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Newsweek
Prince Harry Name Change Would Hit King 'In the Gut'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Prince Harry changing his surname to match Princess Diana's family name would be "a public rejection of his father's family," a royal author told Newsweek. The Duke of Sussex reportedly asked Diana's brother about the possibility of him becoming "Harry Spencer," according to The Mail on Sunday. The newspaper reported that Harry approached his uncle Charles Spencer for advice on whether he should change his name, and was told it would be logistically difficult. According to the Mail, Harry therefore dropped the proposal. The U.K. tabloid is among Harry and Meghan Markle's most hated and has been sued by the couple four times. Newsweek approached a representative of the Sussexes for comment. Prince Harry leaves the Royal Courts of Justice in London, England, after a hearing in the lawsuit he brought against the British government over his police protection, on April 9, 2025. Prince Harry leaves the Royal Courts of Justice in London, England, after a hearing in the lawsuit he brought against the British government over his police protection, on April 9, Jobson, author of Sunday Times No. 1 bestseller Catherine, the Princess of Wales: The Biography, told Newsweek: "So now Prince Harry wanted to be a Spencer. That's the latest twist in the ongoing royal soap opera—and if true, it's a move that would've hit King Charles right in the gut. "Let's be clear: changing his surname from Mountbatten-Windsor to Spencer would've been no small thing. It would've been a public rejection of his father's family, a slap in the face to the late Prince Philip, who fought tooth and nail to get that name recognized in the first place. For Harry to ditch it now? That would sting." The name Mountbatten came from Prince Philip's side of the family while Windsor came from Elizabeth's. "The idea of Harry becoming 'Harry Spencer' may appeal to some," Jobson continued. "Those who see him as his mother's son, always fighting against the establishment. But let's not pretend this would've been a noble gesture. "It would've looked petty, performative, and, frankly, unnecessary. Another line drawn in a family feud already far too public. "It hasn't happened. Perhaps Harry realized it wouldn't bring him closer to Diana—it would just push him further from the family he still claims to want to reconcile with. "At some point, the performance has to stop. A name change wouldn't heal wounds; it would just deepen them. For once, walking away from drama may have been the wisest move he's made." Ingrid Seward, author of My Mother and I, expressed a degree of skepticism and told Newsweek: "I can't see that Harry would have anything to gain but there is nothing to stop him becoming Harry Spencer. I think the king would just find it extremely hurtful." Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Names and Titles It is not completely clear what would have motivated Harry to pursue the idea of becoming a Spencer but the Sussexes' names and titles have long been a matter of debate. On the one hand, fans of Meghan have bemoaned the fact that outlets including Newsweek continue to refer to her as "Markle" despite her losing her surname when she married Harry in 2018. And Meghan herself corrected Mindy Kaling during her 2025 Netflix cooking show With Love, Meghan, saying: "It's so funny you keep saying Meghan Markle, you know I'm Sussex now." That led to fans and Drew Barrymore calling her "Meghan Sussex," though the royal still refers to herself, including on her website, as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. On the other hand, critics of the couple have repeatedly called for them to be stripped of their titles, which usually refers to their duke and duchess titles rather than Harry's "prince" title. Needless to say, Harry has also talked about becoming a U.S. citizen, a process that conventional wisdom suggests would require him to drop his royal titles and give up allegiance to "any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty" as required by the Oath of Allegiance. If the Mail's story is true, one possible explanation could be that Harry was exploring what he would do in the event that he became an American citizen, losing his duke and prince titles and therefore needing a surname. Alphonse Provinziano, of U.S. law firm Provinziano & Associates, told Newsweek in 2024 that Harry might be able to challenge the rule at the Supreme Court: "If you're becoming a U.S. citizen, you have to renounce your titles so it treats similarly situated people differently," Provinziano said. "That law, that was created by Congress, actually creates an unequal system. "There is no Supreme Court case that interprets that code section merely because there's only been about a dozen American citizens who have had a prince or princess title. "It's something that theoretically could go all the way to the Supreme Court because the court would have to review the law to make sure it's constitutional. "The U.S. Supreme Court then, if it says Harry could keep his title or not keep his title, could have an effect on the line of succession of the British Monarchy, which is something that I don't think anyone ever contemplated. So it's fascinating." Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page. Do you have a question about Charles and Queen Camilla, Prince William and Princess Kate, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@ We'd love to hear from you.
Western Telegraph
11 hours ago
- General
- Western Telegraph
Criminal cases review body ‘must win back trust' as interim chairwoman announced
Dame Vera Baird KC will become the interim chairwoman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which has been heavily criticised for its handling of the Andrew Malkinson case, one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history. The barrister will take up the post from June 9 until December 8 next year, and is tasked with carrying out an urgent review into the running of the independent body and making sure lessons have been learnt from previous cases. Andrew Malkinson outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London after being cleared by the Court of Appeal in 2023 (Jordan Pettitt/PA) The independent body is currently tasked with reviewing the convictions of serial child killer Lucy Letby. Announcing the move on Tuesday, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood told MPs: 'In recent years the commission has lost the trust of the public. 'It must now win it back. 'So today I have appointed Dame Vera Baird, a former victims commissioner, to be its interim chair. 'She will review the commission, its governance and leadership and ensure it delivers once more for those who have been victims of injustice.' Her appointment comes after former chairwoman Helen Pitcher resigned in January following Mr Malkinson's case but claimed she had been scapegoated. Mr Malkinson served 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit, and was knocked back twice by the CCRC until his legal team carried out crucial DNA testing that was then repeated by the commission and led to his release. A review found that he could have been released 10 years earlier if the CCRC had obtained new DNA evidence as early as 2009, and thousands of cases are being reviewed in the wake of the bungled handling of the case. Last month, the Commons Justice Committee also warned that the position of the current chief executive of the CCRC, Karen Kneller, is no longer tenable. MPs said in a report it follows 'unpersuasive' evidence from her on the CCRC's challenges and response to public criticisms in April, and concerns on the performance of the review body. On her new role, Dame Vera said: 'It is vital the public can have confidence in an organisation whose constitutional importance is so central to a fair and just system. 'I look forward to working alongside the many hardworking and dedicated members of staff to restore that confidence, ensuring recommendations stemming from multiple reviews over the last decade are being effectively implemented, as well as identifying further areas for improvement.' A CCRC spokesperson said: 'Dame Vera brings decades of experience in the criminal justice system and a strong commitment to ensuring justice for all. 'Everyone at the CCRC looks forward to working with her to continue our mission to find, investigate and send potential miscarriages of justice back to the courts.'
NDTV
23-05-2025
- Business
- NDTV
What UK Judge Said On Denying Nirav Modi Bail For 10th Time
London: Dismissing the 10th bail plea of Nirav Modi after considering that the fugitive diamond trader would 'abscond' if released, the London High Court judge has said UK courts have "twice concluded that there is an evidenced prima facie case against the applicant." Stating that his risk of absconding is high, Justice Michael Fordham at the Royal Courts of Justice dismissed the bail plea. "And I repeat, after careful evaluation, UK courts have twice concluded that there is an evidenced prima facie case against the applicant," Justice Fordham said while rejecting Nirav Modi's bail plea on May 15. The 54-year-old fugitive has filed the bail application after his extradition to India was allowed by a UK Court earlier. His bail application was opposed by the Indian agencies before the High Court. It was his 10th bail petition since his detention in the United Kingdom in 2019. Nirav Modi, the prime accused in the over Rs 13,800 crore fraud at Punjab National Bank, was declared a fugitive economic offender by India in December 2019. The UK High Court said that Nirav Modi is wanted for trial in India for matters of 'very great seriousness and substance' relating to allegations of economic crime, in which he is said to have been the principal perpetrator. The High Court noted that the allegation is that, as the lead perpetrator, Nirav Modi (acting in conjunction with others) fraudulently induced the PNB to issue documents which allowed money to be withdrawn from foreign banks. The central points put forward on the applicant's behalf in the earlier extradition proceedings were, that there was a good and lawful explanation for the transfer of the monies to the relevant entities who received those monies; rather than any denial that the monies were in fact transferred, the court noted in the order of May 15. The amounts alleged to have been transferred, induced by the fraud, come to an aggregate amount of 1,015.35 million US dollars, Justice Fordham said. The Courts, in the context of the Applicant's extradition, have on two occasions assessed the underlying evidence being relied on against the bail applicant. On each occasion, the court has been satisfied that there is a "prima facie case", Fordham said. The court also considered the destruction of a mobile phone in 2018 and interference with witnesses. "Part of what is alleged is that he was criminally responsible for actions in which witnesses were interfered with and evidence was destroyed," the court noted. The judge further noted, "Also said to have been destroyed was evidence on a computer server in Dubai in February 2018. All of that would have taken place at the time when the applicant was here in the UK." Earlier this week, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also issued a press release confirming the court's decision. "Fresh Bail Petition filed by Nirav Deepak Modi was rejected by the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, London. The bail arguments were strongly opposed by the Crown Prosecution Service advocate who was ably assisted by a strong CBI team consisting of investigating and law officers who travelled to London for this purpose." The statement added: "Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) could successfully defend the arguments which resulted in rejection of the bail. Nirav Deepak Modi is in UK prison since 19th March 2019. It may be recalled that Neerav Modi is a fugitive economic offender who is wanted for Trial in India in a Bank fraud case of CBI for defrauding Punjab National Bank for Rs. 6498.20 crore." The CBI further stated: "This is his 10th bail petition since his detention in UK which was successfully defended by CBI through Crown Prosecution Service, London." British authorities arrested Modi in March 2019, and the UK High Court has already approved his extradition to India. The ED registered the PMLA case against him and his uncle Mehul Choksi in 2018, with multiple assets seized during investigations. His attempts to block extradition have repeatedly failed, including a plea to the UK Supreme Court in December 2022.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Very sad day' as judge paves way for Chagos deal, says Briton born on island
A British woman born on the Chagos Islands has said it is a 'very, very sad day' after an injunction blocking the signing of the Government's deal over the territory was lifted. The deal, which would see Britain give up sovereignty of the island territory to Mauritius and lease back a crucial military base there, was due to be signed on Thursday morning but was temporarily blocked by an injunction hours earlier before being signed on Thursday afternoon. Mr Justice Goose granted an injunction at 2.25am against the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) after a bid for 'interim relief' was successfully made by Bertrice Pompe, one of two British women born on the Chagos Islands who is set to bring legal action against the Government over the deal. However, after a hearing later on Thursday, a different High Court judge lifted the injunction. Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London, Ms Pompe said that while it was a 'very, very sad day', she was 'not giving up'. She said: 'Unfortunately, today has been a very, very sad day, but we take courage with the people we have behind us.' She continued: 'For us to be able to push through our message to the Government. 'They are not treating us, that we are human beings. We have rights. We are British citizens, yet our right doesn't count? 'We don't want to give our rights, hand over our rights to Mauritius. We're not Mauritians, and I don't think we will get any … the rights we're asking for now, we've been fighting for for 60 years. Mauritius not going to give that to us. 'So we need to keep fighting with the British Government to listen to us.' Dozens of protesters were gathered outside the central London court after the ruling, where at one point demonstrators could be heard chanting 'no retreat, no surrender'. Deputy leader of Reform, Richard Tice MP, was also outside the Royal Courts of Justice and could be seen ripping up paper before hugging some of the demonstrators. Michael Polak, a barrister representing Ms Pompe and Bernadette Dugasse, another British woman born on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands, said his clients were both disappointed by the decision. He said: 'Previous court decisions in the English courts have mentioned the shameful treatment of the Chagossian people in the 1960s and, unfortunately, under this Government, it seems that shameful treatment has not stopped. 'The people who are closest to the Chagos island, the Chagos islanders, have not been consulted. 'Their future has not been considered by this Government in rushing through and signing a deal this afternoon.' Mr Polak later told reporters that the case now 'moves into the political sphere where British people have to ask themselves and ask their MPs ,'do we agree in what is taking place?'' Planned legal action over the deal, brought by Ms Pompe and Ms Dugasse over the lawfulness of the deal, will continue, the barrister added. Misley Mandarin, a Chagossian who runs the group BIOT (British Indian Ocean Territory) Citizens, said he is 'very disappointed' by the ruling. Speaking to Sky News outside the court, Mr Mandarin said: 'We've been fighting more than 50 years. Like I said earlier, no retreat, no surrender. We will fight to the end … we will not, never, never let our island, a British island, to go to Mauritius.' 'We will try to talk to the Government again, if it don't listen to us,' Mr Mandarin continued. 'We are ready, ready to go to the fight to the end.'
