Latest news with #UKSupremeCourt
Leader Live
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Leader Live
Second-chance for Wrexham Planning Committee to rule on 600-home plan
The last time the application was on the agenda was two weeks ago, when the planning committee meeting collapsed after two-and-a-half minutes due to not enough members attending. After the UK Supreme Court ruling that left Wrexham's Local Development Plan (LDP) unadopted, the scheme – on land that was included in the LDP – was left in limbo. When the plans first came before the committee in 2020, councillors raised objections that the site lay outside the settlement area in the Green Barrier. Once it was included in the LDP, that objection was withdrawn as the land was formally included in the council's development plans. Related reading: Now, with moves afoot to erase the LDP entirely and an inquiry by Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) into the development due on September 29, Wrexham Council has a second chance to determine the application and submit a formal response to the inquiry. In the report the committee will consider officers have recommended that Wrexham Council could not successfully defend an appeal if it reinstated its opposition to the development. It also advises if they go against that advice and restore their objections, the committee will need to nominate two councillors to give evidence before the inquiry. According to the report: 'Although the unadopted LDP no longer has the status of development plan, the Development Management Manual (DMM)advises that the weight to be attached to an unadopted LDP will depend on the stage it has reached. 'Local Planning Authorities need to carefully consider the underlying evidence to an unadopted LDP. 'In the event that members determine to reinstate one or more of the reasons for refusal, members will nominate up to two members of the Planning Committee to act as expert witnesses at the inquiry.'
RTÉ News
a day ago
- Business
- RTÉ News
Ex-trader Hayes wins appeal to overturn rate-rigging conviction
Tom Hayes, the first trader ever jailed for interest rate rigging, had his conviction overturned by Britain's top court today after a years-long fight to clear his name. The UK Supreme Court unanimously allowed Hayes' appeal, quashing his 2015 conviction of eight counts of conspiracy to defraud by manipulating Libor, a now-defunct benchmark interest rate. "I always believed that it would happen," Hayes, a former Citigroup and UBS star trader, told a press conference. "This wasn't a gamble for me." The court said there had been "ample evidence" for a jury to reasonably conclude Hayes had conspired with others to manipulate submissions used to compile the Libor rate - much of it coming from Hayes' own interviews with Britain's Serious Fraud Office, which brought the charges against him. The SFO claimed that Hayes conspired with others to manipulate the process for setting Libor - an estimate of the interest rate that banks could borrow from one another used to underpin trillions of dollars of contracts. However, the jury ten years ago was misdirected by the judge, who incorrectly said it was not allowed to consider commercial interests in the submissions, the Supreme Court said, and that "undermined the fairness of the trial". Hayes had argued that his conviction hinged on a definition of Libor that assumed there was a legal bar on a bank's commercial interests being taken into account when setting it. Hayes was deprived of the opportunity to have his claims fairly considered "by directions which were legally inaccurate and unfair," the Supreme said, adding that his convictions were "therefore unsafe and cannot stand". Hayes had initially received a 14-year prison sentence, later reduced to 11 years on appeal. He served five and a half years before being released on licence in 2021. Hayes became the face of the global Libor scandal and challenged his conviction at the Supreme Court along with Carlo Palombo, 46, a former Barclays trader who was found guilty in 2019 of skewing Libor's euro equivalent, Euribor. The court also quashed Palombo's conviction. He was given a four-year sentence in 2019. The SFO said that after considering the judgment it would not be in the public interest for it to seek a retrial. Libor, once a key benchmark for global finance, underpinned around $400 trillion in contracts, from mortgages to student loans. Managed by the former British Bankers' Association, it was based on daily estimates from a panel of banks on how much they expected to pay to borrow from each other. The rate was phased out in 2023. The Libor scandal led to more than $9 billion in fines for banks and brokers worldwide, including the convictions of 19 traders in Britain and the US. Hayes challenged his conviction following a landmark US court decision in 2022 that overturned the Libor rigging convictions. Caroline Greenwell, a partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, said the judgment would now bring Britain in line with the United States. "This result not only clears Mr Hayes' and Mr Palombo's names, but could also lead to convictions secured in nine other criminal trials prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office... being reviewed," she said. The SFO brought charges against 20 individuals between 2013 and 2019, securing convictions against nine - seven at trial and two through guilty pleas - while 11 were acquitted.
Euronews
a day ago
- Business
- Euronews
Ex-star trader Tom Hayes cleared as rate-rigging convictions quashed
Former trader for UBS and Citigroup Tom Hayes and ex-Barclays trader Carlo Palombo were both jailed in 2015 and 2019, respectively, for manipulating benchmark interest rates that underpinned $350 trillion (€298.5tr) of loans and securities at the time. They were among a group of traders prosecuted at the time for rigging interest rates. Ten years after Mr Hayes went to jail, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) cleared both of their names by ruling that they had unfair trials and overturned their convictions. Hayes served five-and-a-half years in prison for rigging Libor, the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate, which is now a defunct benchmark interest rate. It was an average calculated from estimates submitted by the leading banks in London and Hayes was one of the traders on the panel, submitting rates. He was found to be intentionally submitting rates to his own advantage. Mr Palombo was jailed later for rigging the Euribor, an average rate also influenced by a large panel of European banks that borrow funds from one another. The UK Supreme Court said on Wednesday, that the juries were misdirected by judges in both cases. 'There was ample evidence on which a jury, properly directed, could have found the appellant guilty of conspiracy to defraud. But the jury was not properly directed,' the UKSC statement read. 'That made the trial unfair and leads to the conclusion that Mr Hayes' convictions must be quashed.' In Mr Palombo's case, the court ruled similarly — 'essential errors' and 'ambiguities', adding that the 'conviction is also unsafe and must be quashed'.
The Sun
2 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Tom Hayes wins appeal to overturn Libor rigging conviction in UK
LONDON: Tom Hayes, the first trader jailed for interest rate rigging, has had his conviction overturned by Britain's top court after a lengthy legal battle. The UK Supreme Court unanimously allowed Hayes' appeal, quashing his 2015 conviction on eight counts of conspiracy to defraud by manipulating the now-defunct Libor benchmark. Hayes, a former Citigroup and UBS trader, initially received a 14-year sentence, later reduced to 11 years. He served five and a half years before being released in 2021. Alongside him, Carlo Palombo, a former Barclays trader convicted in 2019 for skewing Euribor, also had his conviction overturned. The court ruled that their convictions relied on a flawed legal interpretation of Libor and Euribor, which incorrectly assumed banks could not consider commercial interests when submitting rate estimates. The Libor scandal, which led to global regulatory reforms, involved banks submitting false estimates to influence borrowing costs. The benchmark was phased out in 2023. Hayes' victory follows a similar 2022 U.S. ruling that overturned convictions of two former Deutsche Bank traders. - Reuters
Scotsman
3 days ago
- Health
- Scotsman
Equality Act 'a grey area', says NHS Fife manager who lifted Sandie Peggie's suspension
The ongoing employment tribunal heard the nurse was not deemed to be a risk to trans patients. Sign up to our Politics newsletter 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... The Equality Act is a 'grey area', according to the NHS Fife manager who lifted nurse Sandie Peggie's suspension. The ongoing employment tribunal between the nurse, trans doctor Beth Upton, and NHS Fife was also told Ms Peggie was not deemed to be a risk to trans patients. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lottie Myles, service manager at NHS Fife, was questioned by the tribunal on Monday. Ms Peggie is suing the health board and Dr Upton after she was suspended following a row between the pair over Dr Upton's use of the female changing rooms on Christmas Eve, 2023. Nurse Sandie Peggie | JeffDuring her evidence, Ms Myles said she had researched the Equality Act 2010 for a better understanding of the law, but admitted 'it is a grey area within a lot of workplaces'. She added: 'I felt reassured in my research that the elements regarding gender recognition say we are to treat the person in the sex they identify as. I didn't want to breach legislation and I wanted to have both parties treated fairly and equally.' In April, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the terms 'sex' and 'women' refers to biological sex only. Transgender remains a protected characteristic under this legislation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Peggie was suspended over allegations of bullying and harassment just days after the changing room incident on Christmas Eve. Ms Myles told the tribunal she could understand how the suspension was embarrassing for Ms Peggie and was affecting her mental wellbeing as she had been a nurse for 30 years with an 'unblemished' record. At this point Ms Myles decided to lift her suspension as she felt 'reassured' she was not a risk to trans patients in the emergency department. She said: 'I felt reassured she wouldn't treat them differently. 'Sandie has been a nurse for 30 years - I'm sure in that time she has dealt with transgender patients. 'I felt there were no safety concerns.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She added the return to work meeting between her and Ms Peggie was 'difficult because it was emotional for Sandie Peggie'. Initially Ms Myles suggested Ms Peggie be moved to a different department within the hospital, but Ms Peggie objected to this as emergency nursing is her 'bread and butter'. There were also suggestions Ms Peggie, who had worked night shifts, be moved to day shifts so she could be supervised by senior nursing staff. Ms Peggie also objected to this as she needed a shift pattern that worked around her dog at home. A compromise was then found where Ms Peggie and Dr Upton were never on the rota at the same time. However, numerous members of staff within the emergency department then said they 'weren't happy' with Ms Myles's decision to allow Ms Peggie to return to work. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Myles said that Dr Kate Searle and Dr Maggie Currer both objected to her decision, while senior nurse managers Esther Davidson and Louise Curran 'similarly expressed' objections, but were not able to give an 'accurate response' regarding alleged patient safety concerns. She said she told Ms Peggie verbally on March 7 and in writing on March 12 that the suspension would be lifted. However, it was later reinstated due to issues with looking after the nurse's dog, and she returned to work around April 12 2024. Ms Myles said that 'usually we don't like to suspend' and she believed there were no patient safety issues, the tribunal heard. However she said that she 'wasn't impressed' by allegations made by senior medics and warned them to comply with correct protocols and policies. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Myles said: 'When I explained to staff members they weren't particularly happy with my decision initially.' She said she visited Dr Searle's office to co-ordinate a rota and was met with further objections, but warned the consultant she was 'culpable' if allegations were not reported correctly, the tribunal heard. Ms Myles said: 'Kate Searle expressed unhappiness that we were taking Ms Peggie back into the workplace and made a comment saying there had been patient safety issues, there had been other behaviours towards a doctor. I asked if this had been investigated and reported appropriately, and she said no. 'I said that if these events had happened and they had not been reported, you were culpable.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She added: 'They weren't happy but it was my sole responsibility to review the suspension. My primary concern is to make sure patients are getting seen.' The witness said she did not know 'what the indicators were… to be suspended in the first place' and felt there 'was no risk', the tribunal heard. Ms Myles said: 'I wasn't impressed; if someone wants to raise patient safety concern it should go through correct process and be escalated at the time the incident happened. My stance was: 'If you have not followed correct protocol and policy you are culpable'.' She said that Ms Davidson alleged that a doctor had been subject to a racist slur by Ms Peggie, which is denied by the nurse. And she branded allegations by Ms Curran that the nurse shared Donald Trump's views on gender 'tittle-tattle', the tribunal heard. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Myles said: 'It was very similar, tittle-tattle of being a supporter of Donald Trump and sharing his views on gender. That's somebody's personal view and as long as it doesn't impact on workforce or patients or cause harm, people are entitled to have their private views.'
