Latest news with #freedomOfExpression
The Independent
3 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Implications of Adams' libel victory ‘profound', says head of BBC NI
The head of the BBC in Northern Ireland has said the implications of Gerry Adams' libel victory against the broadcaster are 'profound'. Adam Smyth, director of BBC NI, said their legal team had warned that the jury's decision in the high-profile defamation case could 'hinder freedom of expression'. The BBC has been ordered to pay the former Sinn Fein leader 100,000 euro (£84,000) after a jury decided they had defamed him in a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson. Mr Adams denies any involvement in Mr Donaldson's death in 2006. Speaking outside Dublin High Court alongside Spotlight reporter Jennifer O'Leary, Mr Smyth said they were disappointed with the verdict. He said: 'We believe we supplied extensive evidence to the court of the careful editorial process and journalistic diligence applied to this programme and accompanying online article. 'Moreover, it was accepted by the court, and conceded by Gerry Adams' legal team, that the Spotlight broadcast and publication were of the highest public interest.' Mr Smyth said the BBC had not wanted to come to court. But he added: 'It was important that we defend our journalism and we stand by that decision. 'Our past is difficult terrain for any jury and we thank them for their diligence and careful consideration of the issues in this case. 'The implications of their decision, though, are profound. 'As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it's hard to see how anyone's could. 'And they warned that today's decision could hinder freedom of expression. 'Of course, a case of this importance, duration and complexity involves significant expense. In common with other media organisations, the BBC has insurance and makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims.' Mr Smyth said the BBC would now take time to consider the implications of the ruling. Ms O'Leary said she had entered the witness box in the trial with 'nothing to hide, only sources to protect and I want to thank them for trusting me'. She paid tribute to the witnesses who had appeared for the BBC in the case, including Ann Travers, whose sister was murdered by the IRA in 1984. She said: 'And there are thousands of Ann Travers across this island and in Britain – victims and survivors of the Troubles and the years after the peace agreement – who carry the burden of their grief and trauma with incredible courage. 'They are the people I'm thinking of – all of them.'
BreakingNews.ie
3 days ago
- General
- BreakingNews.ie
Implications of Gerry Adams' libel victory ‘profound', BBC boss claims
The head of the BBC in Northern Ireland has said the implications of Gerry Adams' libel victory against the broadcaster are 'profound'. Adam Smyth, director of BBC NI, said their legal team had warned that the jury's decision in the high-profile defamation case could 'hinder freedom of expression'. Advertisement The BBC has been ordered to pay the former Sinn Féin leader €100,000 after a jury decided they had defamed him in a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Féin official Denis Donaldson. Mr Adams denies any involvement in Mr Donaldson's death in 2006. Journalist Jennifer O'Leary presented the Spotlight programme. Photo: Brian Lawless/PA Speaking outside the High Court alongside Spotlight reporter Jennifer O'Leary, Mr Smyth said they were disappointed with the verdict. He said: 'We believe we supplied extensive evidence to the court of the careful editorial process and journalistic diligence applied to this programme and accompanying online article. Advertisement 'Moreover, it was accepted by the court, and conceded by Gerry Adams' legal team, that the Spotlight broadcast and publication were of the highest public interest.' Mr Smyth said the BBC had not wanted to come to court. But he added: 'It was important that we defend our journalism and we stand by that decision. 'Our past is difficult terrain for any jury and we thank them for their diligence and careful consideration of the issues in this case. Advertisement 'The implications of their decision, though, are profound. 'As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it's hard to see how anyone's could. 'And they warned that today's decision could hinder freedom of expression. 'Of course, a case of this importance, duration and complexity involves significant expense. In common with other media organisations, the BBC has insurance and makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims.' Advertisement Gerry Adams took the BBC to court over an episode of its Spotlight programme. Photo: Brian Lawless/PA Mr Smyth said the BBC would now take time to consider the implications of the ruling. Ms O'Leary said she had entered the witness box in the trial with 'nothing to hide, only sources to protect and I want to thank them for trusting me'. Ireland Gerry Adams awarded €100,000 in damages after winn... Read More She paid tribute to the witnesses who had appeared for the BBC in the case, including Ann Travers, whose sister was murdered by the IRA in 1984. She said: 'And there are thousands of Ann Travers across this island and in Britain – victims and survivors of the Troubles and the years after the peace agreement – who carry the burden of their grief and trauma with incredible courage. Advertisement 'They are the people I'm thinking of – all of them.'
BBC News
3 days ago
- General
- BBC News
BBC Statement on outcome of Gerry Adams' legal proceedings against the BBC
Adam Smyth, Director of BBC Northern Ireland, on behalf of the BBC said: "We are disappointed by this verdict. We believe we supplied extensive evidence to the court of the careful editorial process and journalistic diligence applied to this programme and accompanying online article. Moreover, it was accepted by the court, and conceded by Gerry Adams' legal team, that the Spotlight broadcast and publication were of the highest public interest. "We didn't want to come to court, but it was important that we defend our journalism and we stand by that decision. Our past is difficult terrain for any jury and we thank them for their diligence and careful consideration of the issues in this case. "The implications of their decision, though, are profound. As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it's hard to see how anyone's could. And they warned that today's decision could hinder freedom of expression. "Of course, a case of this importance, duration and complexity involves significant expense. In common with other media organisations the BBC has insurance and makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims. "We would like to thank Jennifer O'Leary, Gwyneth Jones and all those who gave evidence on behalf of the BBC, as well as our legal team for their unwavering support. We will now take some time with them to consider the implications of this ruling." Jennifer O'Leary, Spotlight reporter, said: "I first want to thank the legal teams involved in defending the BBC's journalism – our inhouse litigation team, in particular Stephen Harris and Alice Hickey, our Dublin team led by Karyn Harty and her team at Denton's – in particular, Lesley Caplin and Aaron McCarthy, and our advocates in court – Senior Counsels Paul Gallagher, Eoin McCullough and Junior Counsel Hugh McDowell. All were forensic, fair and kind. "I said in the witness box that I had nothing to hide, only sources to protect and I want to thank them for trusting me. "I also want to acknowledge and thank our witnesses in court – Trevor Ringland, Senator Michael McDowell and Ann Travers – who spoke so courageously. And there are thousands of Ann Travers across this island and in Britain - victims and survivors of the Troubles AND the years after the peace agreement who carry the burden of their grief and trauma with incredible courage. They are the people I'm thinking of – all of them. Thank you."
Arab News
4 days ago
- General
- Arab News
International rights bodies write joint letter to Pakistani PM calling for releases of Baloch activists
ISLAMABAD: Amnesty International along with four other human rights organizations on Wednesday wrote to the Pakistani prime minister, calling for an end to the 'harassment and arbitrary detention' of Baloch human rights defenders (HRDs) exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, particularly in Balochistan province. The letter comes in the wake of Dr. Mahrang Baloch, one of the leading campaigners for the Baloch minority and the leader of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), and a number of other activists, being arrested in March on charges of terrorism, sedition and murder. Security forces are battling a growing insurgency in Balochistan, an impoverished province that borders Afghanistan and Iran. Rights groups say the violence has been countered with a severe crackdown that has swept up innocent people. Authorities deny heavy handedness. 'All five organizations — Amnesty International, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Front Line Defenders, International Federation for Human Rights, World Organization Against Torture — appeal to Pakistan's Prime Minister to release Baloch human rights defenders and end the crackdown on dissent in line with Pakistan's international human rights obligations,' Amnesty Internation said on X, sharing a copy of the joint letter. The joint letter called on the government to take the following steps: Immediately and unconditionally release all Baloch HRDs and their family members 'arbitrarily detained solely for peacefully exercising their rights in line with the right to liberty and safety'; drop all charges against them; pending their release, ensure the safety of HRDs and family members, including by sharing accurate information about their whereabouts, providing effective access to family members, legal counsel and medical treatment; conduct a thorough, impartial, effective and transparent investigation into the allegations of torture and mistreatment by Pakistani authorities of Baloch HRDs under detention; end the crackdown against HRDs, journalists, protesters and dissidents by ensuring their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are fully protected; cease all forms of reprisals against family members of HRDs; and conduct an 'effective, prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into the unlawful use of force' against protesters including Dr. Baloch on March 21 in Quetta and bring those suspected of responsibility to justice through fair trials. Activists say in the crackdown against militancy in Balochistan, authorities have harassed and even carried out extrajudicial killings of Baloch civilians. Pakistani authorities reject the 'baseless allegations.' A dozen UN experts called on Pakistan in March to immediately release Baloch rights defenders, including Dr. Baloch, and to end the repression of their peaceful protests. UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders Mary Lawlor said she was 'disturbed by reports of further mistreatment in prison.' Balochistan is the site of a long-running separatist movement, with insurgent groups accusing the state of unfairly exploiting Balochistan's rich gas and mineral resources. The federal and provincial governments deny this, saying they are spending billions of rupees on the uplift of the province's people.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
Only a very clever man like Lord Sumption could be so stupid when it comes to Lucy Connolly
Lord Sumption concedes: 'English law has generally been on the side of freedom of expression… it has always drawn the line at threatening language which is likely to provoke a breach of the peace… If a rabble-rouser stood on a soap-box in front of a howling mob and urged them to head for the nearest immigration hostel and burn it down, this point would be obvious. Doing it on social media is worse because the reach of social media posts is much greater. Its algorithms thrust words like Mrs Connolly's under the noses of people who are already likely to agree. The internet can whip up a howling mob in minutes.' But there is zero evidence that Lucy's words, posted on the evening of the Southport murders, incited violence. Riots did not break out 'in minutes'. They started days later following Sir Keir Starmer's infamous and insulting 19-second laying of a wreath in Southport before a jeering crowd. And after the authorities had done their sly best to conceal from a distraught public key information about the killer, Axel Rudakubana – compare the alacrity (and sigh of relief) with which they announced that the alleged Liverpool car attacker was a white, middle-aged male. Funny what can be disclosed when an alleged offender doesn't belong to a protected minority, eh? No normal person agrees with Lord Sumption that fleeting tweets are worse than, to take just one example, what suspended Labour councillor Ricky Jones is alleged to have done in person at the time Lucy was arrested. Jones was filmed at an anti-fascism demonstration apparently urging a crowd to attack rioters: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists and we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' For reasons which I'd quite like the Ministry of Justice to explain, Jones was granted bail while Lucy Connolly had her bail application rejected twice. Jones has been a free man since January (no pressure to plead guilty for him, no kangaroo hearing within days) and his much-postponed trial will finally take place in August (unless the judge has a pressing lunch engagement or pigs are seen flying over the Old Bailey). By which time, Lucy will have served a whole year behind bars. It is this apparent two-tier justice which Lord Sumption did not address in a piece where he loftily dismissed the claim that Lucy is a free-speech martyr or 'even a political prisoner'. I am no student of jurisprudence (a lucky escape as I got into Cambridge to read law) but to me, and to millions of others, it is perfectly obvious that a political prisoner is exactly what Lucy Connolly is. Prison authorities at Drake Hall in Staffordshire have just punished their exemplary prisoner for 'press engagement' – that's communicating her predicament via her husband, Ray, to yours truly. 'Auntie Judith', AKA your columnist, has sadly been struck off the list of people Lucy is allowed to phone. She has also repeatedly been denied release on temporary licence (ROTL) with her child and sick husband. 'You've offended a lot of people, Lucy,' one official chided. Probation officers and prison guards alike have expressed astonishment that Lucy is still not free. After the Court of Appeal's heartbreaking decision last Tuesday, her cell was full of officers coming to commiserate: they all assumed she was going home, and other prisoners had already distributed Lucy's stuff among themselves. After months of unfair treatment, when Lucy dared to complain to someone outside the prison that she wasn't being allowed the leave on licence to which she was entitled, the prison authorities said she would, yet again, not be allowed that leave, because of, yes, complaining to someone outside the prison. What does that sound like to you? Joseph Heller called it Catch-22. I am told that prison authorities have been 'rattled' by The Telegraph 's coverage of Lucy's case. Good. So they bloody well should be. The free press – are we still allowed one of those, Prime Minister? – will not stay silent when we perceive a carriage of misjustice. I could easily fill this column with examples of heinous cases where an offender was afforded more lenient treatment than Lucy Connolly. One that leaps out concerns the Court of Appeal, which just dashed Lucy's hopes. In March 2023, the court cut the jail term given to former Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham for sexually abusing two children in the 1970s. Ahmed was convicted of trying to rape an underage girl on two occasions and seriously sexually assaulting a boy under the age of 11. He was jailed for five years and six months at Sheffield Crown Court in February 2022. The judge told Lord Ahmed: 'Your actions have had profound and lifelong effects on the girl and the boy, who have lived with what you did to them for between 46 and 53 years. They express more eloquently than I ever could how your actions have affected and continue to affect their lives in so many different and damaging ways.' However, in their infinite wisdom, three Appeal Court judges, including Lord Justice Holroyde who decided that Lucy Connolly's 31-month sentence was 'not manifestly excessive', reduced the jail term of the sexual abuser and Labour Muslim peer to two years and six months because his age at the time of the offences was not given sufficient weight. Let us pause for a moment, lords, ladies and gentlemen, and marvel at the very clever stupid men who think that a mother who put something hateful for four hours on social media deserves a longer prison sentence than a man who tried to rape and molest children, and got away with that dreadful crime for half a century. 'I shall not waste any sympathy on Mrs Connolly,' quoth the finest legal mind of his generation. 'What she did was a serious offence.' She didn't try to rape a child though, did she, Lord Sumption? She didn't sexually assault a little boy and claim that two traumatised children told malicious falsehoods about her. She didn't use power and influence to put herself above the law. She didn't get her outrageous sentence reduced by privileged men who seem to have a problem relating to white women from ordinary families with sensible views about immigration. Honestly, the way the judiciary extends leniency to sex offenders is repellent to the point of warped. At least 177 paedophiles have walked free since Lucy Connolly was sentenced on October 17 2024. A devoted mum jailed for two years and seven months while depraved men in possession of the worst category of images of children being violated don't lose a single day of their liberty. (Huw Edwards being just one notorious example: a six-month suspended sentence for the BBC boy-groomer!) By now, it should be amply clear to the British people that our justice system is broken and politicised. Here is a retired judge who emailed the Planet Normal podcast: 'For 40 years, I felt proud and privileged to be a member of what I perceived as a noble and learned profession. Alas! No longer it seems. The way the judiciary has treated poor Lucy Connolly and her family is nothing short of an outrage and scandal that should offend all decent people, while those who bring terror and mayhem to the shores of this nation are admonished (if they are even caught) with little more than a slap on the wrist. I am actually surprised that a senior member of the judiciary has not resigned in the most public of ways to distance himself from the heartlessness of his brothers. Lucy Connolly's treatment has a political motive behind it. Of that there can be no doubt, despite the Separation of Powers being one of the cornerstones of our unwritten constitution. Keep up the good fight, Allison, for all our sakes.' And here is a Telegraph reader who styles himself DC Anonymous: 'I'm a serving police officer of 25 years. I've been a detective on specialist crime units, so I know my way around the justice system. The grossly disproportionate sentence and treatment of Lucy is an embarrassment to the justice system. Her tweet was vile and nasty. However, a community sentence would have been more appropriate. My colleagues and I often work long hours to get convictions over the line and often see paltry sentences dished out to some of the most dangerous offenders with all mitigations taken into consideration. Only for a lady who poses no threat to society to be given two years, seven months. It sickens me to my stomach. Most of us joined the job to arrest real criminals, not see innocent members of the public criminalised for hurty words. My colleagues and I are sick to death of woke management, judges and politicians making our difficult jobs even tougher. No wonder the public has lost respect for us.' I am close to tears when I read emails like those, and as I watch Lucy's crowdfunder appeal edge towards £150,000. Thank God there are still good people who are appalled that 'hurty words' – Orwellian thought crimes no less – receive swingeing sentences while villains go free. It's not hard to foresee that this institutional madness could end up in the serious civil unrest that making a scapegoat of Lucy was meant to forestall. On Tuesday, Tommy Robinson, the far-Right activist, was released from prison after his 18-month sentence was reduced by four months at the High Court last week. Looking like an Old Testament prophet, eyes blazing with religious fervour, a heavily-bearded Robinson (who endured weeks of solitary confinement) said that a war was being waged 'against free speech in Britain '. Citing Lucy Connolly, Robinson said she was 'not a violent criminal' and demanded to know why she had been jailed for so long. While Sir Keir claimed not to have heard of Lucy (does the dreadful man expect us to believe a word he says?), Boris Johnson said that 'Starmer's Britain is losing its reputation for free speech and turning into a police state'. Too right. On Tuesday, Nigel Farage became the latest heavyweight to champion Starmer's political prisoner, saying: 'I want to make it absolutely clear that Lucy Connolly should not be in prison… Although she should not have said what she said, there were millions of mothers at that moment in time after the Southport [massacre] feeling exactly the same way.' Beautifully put. Compare and contrast with Lord Sumption's cold, contemptible, 'Lucy Connolly is in prison where she belongs'. This is what happens when judges have minds so brilliant they cannot be polluted with common sense – or mercy. I just spoke to Ray Connolly, who is at home in Northampton. Ray said that he had read The Telegraph article and Sumption seemed to be a 'stupid git' (possibly the first time the law lord has been described in that way!) and that Sir Keir must be 'regretting the day he tried to make an example of Lucy Connolly'. So, where do we go from here? Drake Hall prison authorities told Lucy that a previous ROTL had been denied because she had expressed 'extreme views' in her phone conversations (possibly with 'Auntie Judith'). But that had now been downgraded to 'strong opinions'. 'Are they saying that Lucy's ROTL is now good to go?' asks Ray, who is desperate for his wife to be able to come home and hug and reassure their daughter even for one day and a night. What further ridiculous excuses and delaying tactics can the justice system come up with for denying Mrs Connolly the temporary leave to which she is entitled? 'The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country,' Lord Sumption said when free speech was brutally suppressed during Covid lockdown.
