Latest news with #SolicitorGeneral
BBC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
West Midlands scheme to give sexual offences victims right to case reviews
Victims of rape and serious sexual assaults in the West Midlands are to get the right to have their cases reviewed if charges are the current system, criminal cases can be stopped if a prosecutor decides there is not a realistic prospect of a pilot scheme launched this week in the region will allow victims to challenge that decision by asking a different prosecutor to review the Attorney General's Office said a criminal case would then proceed if that second prosecutor believed there was enough evidence. The pilot, which is part of the government's pledge to halve violence against women and girls, will initially run for six months, with each case evaluated individually before a decision is later taken on the future of the government said it had recognised the need to progress reviews in a way that was also fair to is hoped the project will help improve confidence in the justice system."This government is treating violence against women and girls with the seriousness it deserves," Solicitor General Lucy Rigby said."There is much more to do, but this is a further step towards the criminal justice system that victims deserve, and one which will ultimately make Britain's streets safer." 'Profoundly failed' Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott campaigned for a change after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped her case by offering no evidence in court.A review afterwards found the prosecution should have gone ahead, but it could not be reinstated."I was profoundly failed and let down by how my case was handled, but I've since seen people within the CPS who are genuinely working to make it better," she said."I'm hugely excited about what this pilot could mean for victims, and I hope it proves successful enough to be rolled out across the country." Siobhan Blake, CPS lead for rape and chief crown prosecutor in the West Midlands, said the prospect of cases being stopped could be devastating for requests for a review can currently be made, if the case has already been stopped in court there is nothing that can be done to reactivate it."This pilot offers greater reassurance for victims," Ms Blake said."It means that they will be alerted to the prospect of their case being stopped earlier, so that they can ask for a review by a different prosecutor."If the original decision is reversed then the case will continue, but even if it can't, we hope that victims will have more confidence in the process and the earlier scrutiny of our decision making."The CPS said the pilot could be rolled out nationwide if it was successful in the West Midlands. Follow BBC Stoke & Staffordshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Wall Street Journal
30-05-2025
- General
- Wall Street Journal
Nationwide Injunctions? Only if the Supreme Court Has Spoken
Nationwide injunctions came before the Supreme Court in an emergency oral argument this month. The justices are clearly concerned about the practice, in which a lone federal trial judge can block a government policy even if other judges have upheld it. But the government failed to offer a satisfactory solution. There is, however, a clean and simple fix that the court itself could effectuate. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that nationwide injunctions are flat-out unconstitutional. In response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, he said that means even the Supreme Court couldn't issue one—a position the justices are unlikely to favor.
Daily Mirror
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Far-right activist Tommy Robinson free from prison after 'changing his attitude'
Tommy Robinson has just walked free from prison part-way through his 18-month prison term, after promising a High court judge he will not commit the same crime again. The controversial far-right figure, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon, has reportedly "changed his attitude" after he was jailed in October after admitting multiple breaches of an injunction made in 2021, which barred him from repeating false allegations against a Syrian refugee who successfully sued him for libel. The sentence comprised a 14-month 'punitive' element and a four-month 'coercive' element, with sentencing judge Mr Justice Johnson telling Robinson he could have the latter taken off his sentence if he were to 'purge' his contempt by taking steps to comply with the injunction. Robinson, who was previously due to be released on July 26, applied to purge his contempt yesterday, with his lawyers telling the court that he had shown a 'commitment' to comply with the order. Lawyers for the Solicitor General said they agreed that Robinson had taken steps to adhere to the injunction. In a ruling, Mr Justice Johnson said that there was an 'absence of contrition or remorse' from Robinson, but that he had shown a 'change in attitude' since he was sentenced. He said: 'He (Robinson) has given an assurance that he will comply with the injunction in the future, that he has no intention of breaching it again, and that he is aware of the consequences of what would happen if he breached the injunction again. I consider it appropriate to grant the application.' He added: 'The practical effect, subject to confirmation by the prison authorities, is that the defendant will be released once he has completed the punitive element, which I understand will be within the next week.' Robinson, who attended the hearing via video-link from HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes, showed no immediate reaction once the judgment was handed down. He was jailed last year for 10 admitted breaches of the injunction, after the Solicitor General issued two contempt claims against him. The first alleged he 'knowingly' breached the order on four occasions, including by having 'published, caused, authorised or procured' a film called Silenced, which contains the libellous allegations, in May 2023. The film was pinned to the top of Robinson's profile on the social media site X, while he also repeated the claims in three interviews between February and June 2023. The second claim was issued in August last year and concerned six further breaches, including playing the film at a demonstration in Trafalgar Square in central London last summer. Handing down the sentence at Woolwich Crown Court, Mr Justice Johnson said Robinson could 'purge' his contempt by showing 'a commitment to comply with the injunction'. After being jailed, Robinson lost a bid to bring a legal challenge against the Ministry of Justice over his segregation from other prisoners behind bars in March. He then lost a challenge to his sentence at the Court of Appeal in April, but three senior judges said he could 'still reduce the period he has to spend in custody by taking the steps identified' by Mr Justice Johnson. Barrister Alex Di Francesco, for Robinson, told the court on Tuesday that several of the publications which constituted breaches of the injunction had been 'removed'. He said: 'The defendant has demonstrated that commitment that Your Lordship required, both in his words and his actions. Each admitted breach capable of being purged has been acted upon and has been entirely resulted in removal.' Adam Payter, for the Solicitor General, said that a review had been carried out to assess whether the injunction had been complied with. He told the court that following the review, the Solicitor General 'agrees that the material has been removed from all bar two of the online locations'. He added that Robinson had taken steps to have the publications removed from the two locations where they were still visible. The injunction was issued after Robinson was successfully sued by Jamal Hijazi, a then-schoolboy who was assaulted at Almondbury Community School in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, in October 2018. After a clip of the incident went viral, Robinson made false claims on Facebook, including about Mr Hijazi attacking girls in his school, leading to the libel case. Mr Justice Nicklin ordered Robinson to pay Mr Hijazi £100,000 in damages and his legal costs, as well as making the injunction preventing Robinson from repeating the allegations. Mr Justice Johnson said on Tuesday that Robinson could be jailed for up to two years if he breached the injunction again in the future.
CNN
23-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
Supreme Court pauses attempt to force DOGE to clarify its role
Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday temporarily paused action in an emergency appeal over whether the Department of Government Efficiency must turn over public documents – like other government agencies – or whether it is shielded from such requests because it is part of the White House. The case raises fundamental questions about the power and transparency of an entity that has slashed agency budgets and government employees with unusual speed and that has inspired a wave of federal lawsuits against the Trump administration. Roberts, who handles emergency cases rising from the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, issued an administrative stay intended to halt action for a short period to give the justices time to review the written briefing in the case. As is typically the case with such orders, he did not explain his reasoning. The emergency appeal from President Donald Trump had requested that the justices halt a lower court order that would allow a government watchdog group to depose DOGE staff to better understand the entity's role within the federal government, as they argue it should be covered under the transparency law known as the Freedom of Information Act. That underlying request remains pending. In the appeal, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer described DOGE as a 'presidential advisory body' within the White House that is tasked 'with providing recommendations' to Trump. Given those advisory functions, Sauer wrote, DOGE is exempt from FOIA requirements. Requiring deposition of the entity's leadership, Sauer argued, 'will significantly distract from (DOGE's) mission of identifying and eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government.' A federal judge ruled in March that DOGE is likely covered by FOIA, which allows the public, interest groups and the media to obtain internal government records detailing agency conduct.
RNZ News
21-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
RNZ issued gag order over pre-Budget education story
The court-ordered injunction follows RNZ approaching the office of Education Minister Erica Stanford on Wednesday afternoon for comment after seeing a document titled "Report: Budget 25 Initiative Themes". Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The Attorney-General has been granted an emergency injunction by the High Court to block RNZ from publishing a story it says would damage the government's ability to engage in collective bargaining. The gag order prohibits RNZ from reporting the contents of a confidential education pre-Budget report, which court documents filed by the Attorney-General's office said contained "commercially sensitive information that would prejudice the government's ability to engage effectively in collective bargaining". The court-ordered injunction follows RNZ approaching the office of Education Minister Erica Stanford on Wednesday afternoon for comment after seeing a document titled "Report: Budget 25 Initiative Themes". The minister's office responded by warning RNZ not to publish any of the details contained in the paper. "I'm putting you on notice that you have sighted improperly released budget sensitive information", a spokesperson for the minister said. "It is not in the public interest to be released. Can you please confirm that information will not be published at this time? Can you please come back to me immediately." Emails contained in court documents show that, minutes later, the minister's office contacted Solicitor-General Una Jagose KC, who is the chief executive of Crown Law, and legal action commenced to have RNZ restrained from using any information in the document it had seen. Solicitor-general Una Jagose. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver At 4pm on Wednesday, Justice Dale La Hood heard an urgent application from the Attorney-General and granted an interim injunction without notice preventing publication. "The defendants are restrained from publishing or disseminating themselves or by their agents any information contained in the 'Report: Budget 25 Initiative Themes'," he ordered. "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in these orders restrains in any way any journalist from reporting on the Budget once delivered." The Attorney-General's office had applied for the injunction on the grounds that "the report is confidential and Budget sensitive and contains commercially sensitive information that would prejudice the government's ability to engage effectively in collective bargaining". "The defendants are aware that report was prepared for Budget purposes and are on notice of its confidential nature. It can only have come into the defendants' hands through a breach of confidence by a person(s) unknown to the plaintiff (breach of confidence). "The defendants are aware the information is confidential and that the plaintiff has asserted a right of confidentiality in the information. "Publication or dissemination of the report or information in it will further breach confidence. The dissemination that has already occurred has breached the plaintiff's rights of confidence in respect of the information, and any further publication will involve further such breaches." The Attorney-General also applied for an order that RNZ "return and deliver up the report held by or on behalf of the defendants". The report was the fourth in an unprecedented series of Budget-related education documents seen by RNZ in the past five weeks that have come via three different channels. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
