Latest news with #State
West Australian
2 hours ago
- Politics
- West Australian
Newly re-elected Liberal MLC to retain focus on region
Newly re-elected MLC Neil Thomson says the new Upper House structure which sees the Labor State Government without a majority will benefit regional communities such as the Goldfields. The State Government this week agreed to send its new firearms laws to a parliamentary committee to look at how it was implemented. This followed concern being expressed by regional people, including those in the Goldfields, who rely on guns as part of their everyday work. Mr Thomson said the decision was a 'very important signal' to the community that the Opposition would still be able to achieve things for the regions, despite not being in government. 'That was a promise we took to the election because we knew that so many firearms owners out there in the Goldfields were really frustrated about the massive red tape that's been imposed upon them by these poorly thought through laws . . . which needlessly tie good people down in red tape,' he said. 'I think that is a very exciting change for the people of WA that now here we go, notwithstanding the Upper House changes, we now have democracy being exercised and that the authority of Parliament can start to impose itself upon some of these reckless decisions made by the WA Labor Cabinet.' Despite changes to the Upper House seeing regional electorates abolished in favour of one Statewide electorate, Mr Thomson said he would continue to be a voice for the Goldfields, having served as a member for the Mining and Pastoral region during his previous term. 'There's that benefit as so far as you're representing the whole State, but that is far outweighed by the loss to the specific representation by the Upper House in those distinct regions,' he said. 'Ultimately, we will work with the system we have and I will continue to be very strong on the regional issues, and particularly . . . providing that counter to the Government's position out of the Goldfields, out of Kalgoorlie, and obviously the Kimberley and the Pilbara in particular, and down for the Gascoyne region as well.' Mr Thomson now serves as the shadow minister for planning and land, Aboriginal affairs and seniors, all of which he said would see him continue to work closely for the Goldfields region. He said his office would also remain in Kalgoorlie-Boulder despite him relocating from Broome to Carnarvon, and he encouraged the community to get in touch with any issues or concerns. He said antisocial behaviour, crime rates, power reliability and issues with the nickel industry would continue to be major issues going forward which would have his attention on behalf of the community.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
35 yrs on, 32 get 5 years' RI for 1990 caste violence in Agra village
Agra: Over three decades after caste violence broke out in Panwari and nearby villages in Agra following controversy over a Dalit wedding procession, a local court on Friday sentenced 32 men to five years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) in the case. Delivering the 97-page verdict, the special SC/ST court of Judge Pushkar Upadhyay also imposed a fine of ₹41,000 on each convict. Half of this amount will be given to the affected Dalit families as compensation. The sentencing came three days after the court convicted 35 men and acquitted 15 others for lack of evidence. Of the original 72 accused, 22 died during the prolonged trial. While 32 convicts were taken into custody on Friday, non-bailable warrants were issued against the remaining three for not appearing in court. The case, titled State vs Vipti Ram and others, relates to the violence that unfolded on June 21–22, 1990. The trigger was a Dalit groom riding a horse during his wedding procession in Panwari, which led to objections from a group of Jat men. An altercation followed, and the next day, both sides exchanged gunfire, resulting in the death of 50-year-old Soni Ram Jat. Several Dalit homes were torched in the aftermath. By the afternoon of June 22, the violence had spread to Akola and other nearby villages, where more attacks on Dalits were reported. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Kickstart your new journey with the Honda Shine 125 Honda Learn More Undo The sentencing pertains specifically to the Akola incident. The violence prompted the heavy deployment of Provincial Armed Constabulary and police forces. A month-long curfew was imposed to bring the situation under control. Then-Congress leader and former PM Rajiv Gandhi, along with Sonia Gandhi, had visited Panwari village after the violence. A case was registered at Kagarol police station by then-SHO Omveer Singh Rana. Charges were framed under IPC sections 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 149 (unlawful assembly), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 144 (joining unlawful assembly with a weapon), 325 (causing grievous hurt), and sections 3/2/5 of the SC/ST Act. Additional district govt counsel Hemant Dixit said, "At least 200–250 people were present at the spot in Akola. A total of 72 were named in the case, and 31 prosecution witnesses were examined during the trial." During Friday's hearing, the defence side argued for leniency, stating that the convicted men are now aged between 80 and 85, come from agrarian backgrounds, and have no prior criminal record. BJP MLA Chaudhary Babu Lal and seven others were acquitted in 2022 after key witnesses turned hostile and the original case diary went missing. Dixit countered the defence side's arguments, saying, "All the accused were young at the time of the incident. The violence in Akola was so brutal that it led to a mass exodus of Dalit families. Therefore, we demanded maximum punishment." Meanwhile, sources said that the convicts plan to move the Allahabad high court against the verdict. " No proper investigation was done after the incident. Things are peaceful now — the Dalit families who left have returned, built homes, and we live in harmony today," an associate of one of the convicts said.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
White House convenes meeting to brainstorm new Harvard measures
The Trump administration is escalating its campaign against Harvard University — and looking for new ways to bring the storied institution to heel. The White House convened officials from nearly a dozen agencies on Wednesday to brainstorm additional punitive measures, according to one administration official and a second person familiar with the meeting, who were granted anonymity to share details. The administration official said that forthcoming actions are expected from the State, Treasury, Health and Human Services and Justice departments, among others, and could happen as early as next month. The push comes as the White House regroups after a federal judge blocked its move to bar Harvard from enrolling international students, and underscores how President Donad Trump has grown increasingly invested in the battle. Even as some in the administration privately grouse that the aggressive posture is allowing Harvard to win public sympathy, Trump has kept up the attacks, threatening in a post last week to revoke its tax exempt status and chastising Harvard again Wednesday during an unrelated press conference. 'Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect and all they're doing is getting in deeper and deeper and deeper,' Trump told reporters Wednesday. But with the low-hanging policy options already underway, the administration knows it will need to get more creative to keep squeezing the school, according to two administration officials and another person familiar with the talks, who like others in the story were granted anonymity to share details of private conversations. The administration would not comment on what it is considering but some options include having the Department of Justice expand its investigation into the university's admissions policies or cutting money to medical institutions affiliated with Harvard. 'The latest moves against Harvard are truly just scratching the surface,' said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields, without specifying what else the administration has to bring Harvard to heel. 'Harvard decided to litigate this on MSNBC, the now defunded NPR, and the ratings-disaster CNN instead of acting like adults like many of their competitors have done and engaging in fruitful conversations and actions that would have saved them from their self-inflicted demise.' Harvard University declined to comment. The relentless focus has some inside the administration worrying that the longer the fight the greater the risk that the White House overplays its hand. 'We're fighting a losing battle,' one of the administration officials said, acknowledging that the university has the narrative upper hand when it comes to the effort to revoke Harvard's student visas. 'We've taken one of the most evil institutions and made them the victim.' The fight comes amid the Trump administration's broader efforts to reshape not just American government but the institutions that have long surrounded it. In addition to Harvard, the White House has taken on a slate of other prestigious universities, including other Ivy League schools and the University of California system, as part of a broader siege against cultural institutions it sees as out of step with the administration, from Big Law firms to the Kennedy Center. The conflict between the Trump administration and the Ivy League university has been brewing since February, but it escalated dramatically after an April 11 letter replete with demands was mistakenly sent to Harvard at a time when a deal to avoid confrontation was a real possibility. Until that letter was sent, it seemed possible a deal could be reached. But once it was sent communication broke down. In the six weeks since the letter was mistakenly sent, the administration froze $2.2 billion in multiyear research grants and axed an additional $60 million in contracts; cut 500 grants from the National Institutes of Health for Harvard-affiliated institutions; barred the university from any future grants; and launched multiple investigations into Harvard's practices by the departments of Justice, Health, Education and Homeland Security and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Harvard, in response, took the administration to court, where on Thursday a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the administration's effort to bar international students. That block will remain in place as both sides negotiate over a potential injunction that would preserve the status quo while the case moves forward. One of the people familiar with the talks said that while the April 11 letter did inflame tensions, the university could have found a way to move on. Instead, it has refused to have any dialogue with the White House and stopped trying to appease the administration as it tries to win in the court of public opinion, the person said. 'They think their audience is the alumni, the funders and the students and the faculty,' the person said. 'But there's another audience that they're totally not working with. I just don't think that's smart long term."
Politico
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
White House convenes meeting to brainstorm new Harvard measures
The Trump administration is escalating its campaign against Harvard University — and looking for new ways to bring the storied institution to heel. The White House convened officials from nearly a dozen agencies on Wednesday to brainstorm additional punitive measures, according to one administration official and a second person familiar with the meeting, who were granted anonymity to share details. The administration official said that forthcoming actions are expected from the State, Treasury, Health and Human Services and Justice departments, among others, and could happen as early as next month. The push comes as the White House regroups after a federal judge blocked its move to bar Harvard from enrolling international students, and underscores how President Donad Trump has grown increasingly invested in the battle. Even as some in the administration privately grouse that the aggressive posture is allowing Harvard to win public sympathy, Trump has kept up the attacks, threatening in a post last week to revoke its tax exempt status and chastising Harvard again Wednesday during an unrelated press conference. 'Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect and all they're doing is getting in deeper and deeper and deeper,' Trump told reporters Wednesday. But with the low-hanging policy options already underway, the administration knows it will need to get more creative to keep squeezing the school, according to two administration officials and another person familiar with the talks, who like others in the story were granted anonymity to share details of private conversations. The administration would not comment on what it is considering but some options include having the Department of Justice expand its investigation into the university's admissions policies or cutting money to medical institutions affiliated with Harvard. 'The latest moves against Harvard are truly just scratching the surface,' said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields, without specifying what else the administration has to bring Harvard to heel. 'Harvard decided to litigate this on MSNBC, the now defunded NPR, and the ratings-disaster CNN instead of acting like adults like many of their competitors have done and engaging in fruitful conversations and actions that would have saved them from their self-inflicted demise.' Harvard University declined to comment. The relentless focus has some inside the administration worrying that the longer the fight the greater the risk that the White House overplays its hand. 'We're fighting a losing battle,' one of the administration officials said, acknowledging that the university has the narrative upper hand when it comes to the effort to revoke Harvard's student visas. 'We've taken one of the most evil institutions and made them the victim.' The fight comes amid the Trump administration's broader efforts to reshape not just American government but the institutions that have long surrounded it. In addition to Harvard, the White House has taken on a slate of other prestigious universities, including other Ivy League schools and the University of California system, as part of a broader siege against cultural institutions it sees as out of step with the administration, from Big Law firms to the Kennedy Center. The conflict between the Trump administration and the Ivy League university has been brewing since February, but it escalated dramatically after an April 11 letter replete with demands was mistakenly sent to Harvard at a time when a deal to avoid confrontation was a real possibility. Until that letter was sent, it seemed possible a deal could be reached. But once it was sent communication broke down. In the six weeks since the letter was mistakenly sent, the administration froze $2.2 billion in multiyear research grants and axed an additional $60 million in contracts; cut 500 grants from the National Institutes of Health for Harvard-affiliated institutions; barred the university from any future grants; and launched multiple investigations into Harvard's practices by the departments of Justice, Health, Education and Homeland Security and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Harvard, in response, took the administration to court, where on Thursday a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the administration's effort to bar international students. That block will remain in place as both sides negotiate over a potential injunction that would preserve the status quo while the case moves forward. One of the people familiar with the talks said that while the April 11 letter did inflame tensions, the university could have found a way to move on. Instead, it has refused to have any dialogue with the White House and stopped trying to appease the administration as it tries to win in the court of public opinion, the person said. 'They think their audience is the alumni, the funders and the students and the faculty,' the person said. 'But there's another audience that they're totally not working with. I just don't think that's smart long term.'
Sunday World
4 hours ago
- Sunday World
How Richard Satchwell's defence made last ditch attempt to get jury discharged
REVEALED | He was found guilty by a jury of murdering his wife Tina and burying her under the stairs where she lay for six and a half years. Richard Satchwell (centre) leaving the District Court in Cashel, Co Tipperary, after being charged in connection with the murder of Tina Satchwell (Brian Lawless/PA) The move was resisted by the State, who pointed out that much of the publicity was generated by Satchwell himself. In November last year Brendan Grehan SC, for Satchwell, said that as the media attention was concentrated in Cork, it would be "impossible to retain an impartial jury" there who had not heard of the case and formed "adverse views of Mr Satchwell". Mr Grehan said that most trials can be held in local venues but some generate media attention that can be "macabre" and lead to "greater hostility than it is possible to imagine in an ordinary case." Satchwell's preference, Mr Grehan said, was for the trial to be held in Limerick so it would be closer to the prison where he was being held. "He has a position of responsibility there, which enables him to be a productive prisoner," counsel told the court. Gerardine Small SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, opposed the change of venue, arguing that publicity around the case was national, not local. Also, she said, much of that publicity was generated by Satchwell who "sought the attention of the media" by appearing on radio and television shows. Richard Satchwell (centre) leaving the District Court in Cashel, Co Tipperary, after being charged in connection with the murder of Tina Satchwell (Brian Lawless/PA) News in 90 Seconds - May 30th Ms Small pointed to Satchwell's appearances on RTE's 'Prime Time', TV3's 'Ireland AM', the Ray D'Arcy Show and the numerous interviews he gave to journalists. She added: "It is an unusual factor that it [the media attention] can be attributed to the accused man while he was aware the body of his wife was buried where it was." Mr Justice Paul McDermott agreed to change the venue to Dublin, due to the significant risk of an unfair trial. He said: "The high degree of local coverage and engagement with the case takes it out of the ordinary". "SOMEWHAT OF A SIDE SHOW: TWEETS AND CHARGINGS" During the trial and in the absence of the jury, Mr Grehan applied to exclude Satchwell's "cryptic" reply of "Guilty or not guilty, guilty" when he was formally charged with the murder of Tina on October 13, 2023. Counsel said a second part of the application - which was "somewhat of a side show" - was connected to the fact that a member of the press - Paul Byrne, formerly of Virgin Media News - tweeted that Satchwell was going to be charged before gardai had actually done so. He said Superintendent Anne Marie Twomey had received directions from a legal officer at 7.28pm to charge Satchwell with the murder of his wife and he was formally charged at 8:07pm on October 13. Mr Grehan said Mr Byrne had tweeted at 8.03pm that "a man in his 50's had been charged with the murder of Tina Satchwell" - four minutes before his client was formally charged. Counsel said Michael O'Toole, of The Irish Daily Mirror and Irish Daily Star, had "retweeted" at 8.09pm from the handle @mickthehack that "Richard Satchwell had been charged with the murder of his wife". A number of gardai who were called to give evidence in the voir dire denied that they had contacted anyone in the media but accepted that Mr Byrne had tweeted about it several minutes in advance and that Mr O'Toole had named Satchwell as being charged two minutes after it occurred. Mr Grehan said it was "implicit" that contact was made with a number of people in the media "to enable them to do their job". Counsel also submitted that Satchwell should have been informed that he could consult with his solicitor before the charging process took place and was entitled to legal advice "at this critical juncture". "It vitiated the process and the court should not permit the fruits of the charging to be now available to the prosecution," he added. He said the defendant's solicitor Eddie Burke had left the garda station at 7.07pm that evening and didn't arrive back until 8.10pm - three minutes after the charging took place. Read more The lawyer said his client's reply after caution was more prejudicial than probative and would create difficulties in terms of how the jury could be properly directed. In reply, Ms Small said Satchwell, who was interviewed by gardai on ten separate occasions, had a "full appreciation of his entitlement not to say anything" in reply to the caution and was acutely aware of this. The defence, she said, was claiming there is an entitlement to have a solicitor present on charging and she wasn't aware of any such entitlement. She said the entitlement was to legal advice, which Satchwell had received "in abundance". She called the media tweets "completely irrelevant". In his ruling, Mr Justice McDermott said the defendant's reply was fully voluntary and found that the absence of a solicitor in the garda station had not impaired the fairness of the process. He refused to exclude the reply to charge. DIRECTION TO REMOVE MURDER CHARGE FROM INDICTMENT When the prosecution's case was at an end, Mr Grehan applied to the judge to withdraw the charge of murder against his client, submitting there was no evidence of an intention to kill or cause serious injury, which he said was "a huge lacuna" in the State's case. "It is one of the elements of the offence of murder which the prosecution have to adduce evidence of, which they have singularly failed to do," he argued. He said Assistant State Pathologist Dr Margaret Bolster couldn't give a cause of death due to a very long post mortem period and had confirmed there were no broken bones in Tina's body. He said she wasn't able to conclude anything about the state of the organs due to the lapse of time. Mr Grehan said there was an explanation available to the jury as to how death was caused in the case without the evidence of the pathologist or anthropologist and that explanation was given by his client, where Satchwell said the belt of Tina's bathrobe had been held up against her neck until she collapsed. Counsel said this was the only account available as to what happened to Tina and was of "immense importance" as there was no evidence of violence discovered in the post mortem. Counsel said it was significant that Tina's hyoid bone was un-fractured. He said there was also no medical evidence to say that his client's account of holding Tina off with a restraint against her neck before she collapsed suddenly was not possible. In reply, Ms Small submitted that there was "a wealth of evidence" from the surrounding circumstances in the case from which intent could be inferred. Counsel said the deception began on March 20, 2017 very shortly after Satchwell killed Tina and the plethora of lies were an acknowledgement of guilt. Ms Small said a limited post mortem examination was conducted because the defendant had buried his wife in a manner to ensure the cause of death wasn't available. She added: "There is also motive on his own account, Satchwell says she is threatening to leave him. She has wasted 28 years of her life, that is all part of the evidence for the jury to accept or not". Mr Grehan said the lies told were not sufficient to show intent for murder. Referring to motive, he said there was also clearly a basis for which Tina might have wanted nothing further to do with her husband and attacked him in that manner. In his ruling, Mr Justice McDermott said Satchwell's immediate response was to create a false impression that Tina was alive and he had taken every conceivable step to protect himself. He said Satchwell told lie after lie "to any journalist who'd indulge him" and portrayed a scenario that his wife had deserted him suddenly without any explanation. Mr Justice McDermott said Satchwell had shown a degree of malevolence towards his wife and the defendant was totally focused on protecting himself from discovery. There had been, he said, a period of six prolonged years before Tina's body, of which Satchwell had disposed of, was found and this was relevant to the issue of intention. He said it was a matter for the jury as to whether Satchwell had formed the requisite intent and whether he was guilty of his wife's murder. He rejected the application to withdraw the murder charge. APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE THE JURY At the very end of the trial, when Mr Justice McDermott had finished charging the jurors, Mr Grehan said on foot of instructions from his client he "regrettably" had to seek the discharge of the jury Counsel voiced his opposition to the tone of the charge, which he said was intended to "nudge" the jurors towards a guilty verdict. Counsel said he became increasingly concerned as the charge proceeded that it was not resembling a charge but a "second prosecution speech" in terms of the emphasis the court was placing on the State's case to the detriment of the defence. Mr Grehan told the judge he had not put the defence case in full at all to the jury. He said the two separate tasks of directions on the law and a summary of the evidence had become "intermingled" and submitted there was no balance in what had been said to the panel. "The whole emphasis of what was said to the court seemed to be to reiterate the prosecution case," he argued. Mr Grehan said the facts of the case "shouted and screamed for themselves" in terms of what Satchwell did and didn't do. "They are not facts that need to be nudged or pushed for the jury in any particular way". Counsel said it was beyond remedy at this stage and the court should discharge the jury. Ms Small called Mr Grehan's application "wholly inappropriate", describing the charge as balanced, fair and extremely comprehensible. "The criticism is unfounded, a court will rarely outline all the evidence, that is a matter for the jury". In his ruling, the judge said this was a difficult case in which to sum up the evidence for the jury and he didn't accept that his charge was "so wildly unbalanced". He disagreed that the absence of references to certain parts of the evidence in any sense justified the jury being discharged. Mr Justice McDermott refused the application but did give the jury further directions in relation to two matters of which complaints were made, one relating to the detailed evidence of Lorraine Howard concerning her half sister Tina, the other to evidence that Satchwell loved or was "besotted" with his wife.
