Latest news with #legalappeal
Washington Post
12 hours ago
- General
- Washington Post
What cases are left on the Supreme Court's emergency docket? Here's a look
WASHINGTON — The sequence of events is familiar: A lower court judge blocks a part of President Donald Trump's agenda, an appellate panel refuses to put the order on hold while the case continues and the Justice Department turns to the Supreme Court . Trump administration lawyers have filed emergency appeals with the nation's highest court a little less than once a week on average since Trump began his second term.
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
'Psychopathic' killer wins fight to get back into the community early
A convicted killer, who has been described as a 'psychopath' and 'pyromaniac', has won a legal appeal to apply for parole earlier than planned. Queenslander Rodney George Anderson, who is now in his 70s, was convicted of murder twice between 1995 and 2000. A Restricted Prisoner Declaration, issued on June 5, 2023, by former parole board president Michael Byrne KC meant he could not apply for parole for eight years and six months. The legal order, which prevents a prisoner from making a regular parole application, meant Anderson could not submit a request until December 6, 2031. But on Friday, Anderson's appeal against the order on the grounds of his 'human rights' and 'right to dignity' was successful in Brisbane's Supreme Court. Anderson murdered Ethel Adamson, 77, in her home in Brisbane 's southern suburb of Moorooka in June 1995. He then attempted to set the house on fire, according to court documents from 1998. '(Ms Adamson) had been viciously assaulted but the medical evidence suggested that death was probably not immediate,' the documents read. Anderson was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in October 1997. Three years later, he was sentenced for murdering another prisoner by using a television cord to strangle them because they were 'irritating' those around him, the court heard on Friday. The Supreme Court heard Judge Byrne considered both murders, which he said 'demonstrated gratuitous violence', when issuing his restriction declaration. A factor he also cited was psychiatric evidence which demonstrated Anderson had a 'psychopathic personality with poor impulse control', the court heard. The evidence also found he had 'high levels of aggression'. 'The prisoner had demonstrated a lack of any true guilt or remorse for his behaviour which was in line with his psychopathic personality,' Judge Byrne said. The court heard that, in 2023, no one challenged the conclusion Anderson was a 'psychopath and a pyromaniac who continues to pose a moderately high risk of violent recidivism'. In considering Anderson's appeal on Friday, Justice Rebecca Treston said the killer was not arguing Judge Byrne's declaration but the order's length of time. Anderson's legal team based their argument on the decline of the prisoner's health. 'The applicant places particular emphasis on the fact that his medical needs are likely to significantly deteriorate in the future,' the court heard. 'And even if his needs cannot be properly met in the corrective services environment, he will not be able to apply for parole until December 6, 2031.' Anderson suffers from a range of chronic conditions, including a benign tumour at the base of his brain, type-2 diabetes, epilepsy and chronic kidney disease. The court heard that, in 2023, a senior medical officer of the Wolston Medical Centre recommended Anderson would need medical support outside of the prison system. 'The patient's needs are likely to become more difficult to meet in the corrective environment and his care may be more appropriately managed in a supported community or nursing home setting,' they said. Justice Treston told the court she thought the length of the prohibitive order had been made 'without explanation' and ruled in favour of Anderson's appeal. 'I find that the period imposed under the Restricted Prisoner Declaration of 23 June 2023 is invalid and should be set aside,' she said. She will hear from both parties at a later date regarding the suitable length of time for the order.
Reuters
3 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Tariff strike-down widens the US omni-crisis
WASHINGTON, May 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - The Trump administration's norm-bending ranges from the dismantling of the global trade system to defiance of the co-equal legal apparatus of the U.S. government. An international trade court ruling on Wednesday striking down sweeping tariffs imposed on trading partners threatens to combine these crises. The White House poses levies as a fix for various ills central to its agenda, making this setback critical. The range of possible outcomes now widens significantly, depending in turn on whether legal appeals succeed, how the president responds to them, or if legislators step in. Investors and firms just getting to grips with recent chaos must contend with a new bout of unpredictability. For now, the trade court's ruling, opens new tab leaves the administration 10 days to stop collecting most tariffs imposed thus far, including a 10% global retaliatory duty and separate 'national security' levies imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China. President Trump still retains significant power to ratchet fees back up, and existing tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars are unaffected. The ruling also lays out that a 1974 trade law enables temporary levies of up to 15% for up to 150 days. The administration appealed on Wednesday evening, and the urgency of the matter probably ensures speedy proceedings - after all, the first hearing in this case was just two weeks ago. The Supreme Court, the nation's top legal body, has shown the White House some deference in the past, particularly over the conduct of foreign policy. However, President Trump's response to a case over a wrongfully deported man shows that consequences can continue after pushback. Regular attacks on federal judges set a worrying precedent. It's one that's difficult for investors to price. Stock markets brutalized by Trump's initial tariff barrage had recovered after a series of climbdowns. A trade deal struck with the UK offered at least a hazy blueprint for ending the whipsaw of changeable whims, even if further agreements will be harder. And revenue from levies, reaching an all-time high of $16 billion in April, was one of few sops to concerns about bulging deficits as bond markets squirm over the rest of the president's agenda. All of this is in the air. Negotiators in Europe and elsewhere, for the moment, face a muddled counterparty. Ad hoc attempts to rebuild tariffs will take time and invite a frenzied round of lobbying. Of course, Congress could resolve the legal issue by reasserting its trade authority. The powers Trump enjoys have been delegated to him and could be revoked. Legislation, opens new tab instituting a 60-day review process for new tariffs has budding Republican support in the Senate, where seven members of the president's party have signed on. In the battle between the judicial and executive branches, the best outcome would be for the legislature to break the tie. Follow @Rubinations, opens new tab on X
CTV News
4 days ago
- General
- CTV News
Calgary woman loses court fight over dog ownership
The Calgary Courts Centre pictured in Calgary, Monday, May 6, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh A Calgary judge has denied a woman's appeal of an arbitrator's decision that handed over ownership of two dogs to her ex-partner. Justice M.R. Gaston of the Alberta Court of King's Bench dismissed the appeal on May 22. Appellant Cinde Kristine MacKenzie Peterson claimed the arbitrator assigned to the separation of her and her partner Ryan Lawrence Sluchenski erred when they awarded ownership of Pawsi and Torsen, the couple's dogs, to her ex-partner. Peterson said she purchased the dogs, the decision was not in the 'best interests' of Pawsi and that the arbitrator awarded relief that neither party asked for. According to court documents, Peterson and Sluchenski had been partners for more than 16 years and separated in January 2023. The arbitrator's decision, issued Jan. 29, 2024, awarded Sluchenski both dogs and ordered him to pay Peterson $2,300 at compensation of her interest in them. The arbitrator recognized she originally purchased the animals, but since the initial sale was only conducted through credit under her name, decided the dogs were co-owned because the payments were handled by both individuals. Gaston agreed with the arbitrator's determination. 'Ms. Peterson's complaint is a disagreement about the weight given to the factors. This is not an extricable question of law on which leave can be granted. The arbitrator was exercising her discretion in applying the law to the facts, making this issue one of mixed fact and law.' 'Best interests' of Pawsi Peterson also appealed the arbitrator's decision to consider the fact that Pawsi was more closely bonded to Sluchenski – something she said was a determination of 'the best interests' of the animal. Peterson told the court that was irrelevant to the case. Gaston disagreed with Peterson's characterization of the arbitrator's decision. 'This finding is not a consideration of the best interests of Pawsi,' she wrote. 'The arbitrator did not decide based on the best interests of Pawsi, she made a decision based on a number of factors, including to which party companionship of the dogs was more important.' Peterson also disputed the $2,300 award ordered by the arbitrator, stating they exceeded their jurisdiction by making the order that she said, 'was procedurally unfair.' Gaston said the payment was calculated out of a desire from both parties to ensure the dogs were not split up. 'It was within the arbitrator's discretion to distribute the family property in a manner that she considered 'just and equitable.' 'Because both dogs were awarded to Mr. Sluchenski, to keep the dogs together as instructed, the arbitrator awarded the value of half the dog's purchase price to Ms. Peterson.'
ABC News
23-05-2025
- ABC News
Former foster mother of William Tyrrell has conviction overturned over different child
The former foster mother of missing boy William Tyrrell has had her conviction for assaulting and intimidating a different child overturned due to her "unique and heartbreaking stresses". The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, successfully appealed her conviction for two counts of assault and two counts of intimidation against the child. She was initially placed on a 12-month community corrections order, which required that a conviction be recorded against her name in March last year. On Friday, Judge Miiko Kumar found the four offences against the 59-year-old were "proven" but determined that the sentence was "too severe" and overturned the conviction. "The appellant [the woman] has experienced a number of traumatic events, the most being the disappearance of a child who she clearly loved," Judge Kumar told Downing Centre District Court. "I accept that she experienced a combination of factors, which were unique and heartbreaking stresses. "She has been described as a blameless character, which I accept." The woman wiped away tears as she was instead ordered to serve a 12-month conditional release order. The 59-year-old previously pleaded guilty to two assault charges after she hit the child with a wooden spoon and kicked them in the thigh in 2021. Magistrate Susan McIntyre later found her guilty of intimidation, including by saying the child was going to "cop it" during an argument, and that they were being a "smarty pants" and would get a "slap across the face". Judge Kumar accepted the woman's argument that the offences were in the "low end" of objective seriousness. "She's a person whose culpability on any view must be regarded as being at a low level and one, which is strongly mitigated by as powerful [of a] subjective case as could be imagined," the judge said. At the time the woman spoke to a friend about the pressure she was under following William's disappearance, and Judge Kumar found she had demonstrated "genuine remorse" for the psychical assaults. The offences arose after the home and cars of William's former foster parents were bugged by NSW Police for about a year. William disappeared from his foster grandmother's house near Kendall on the Mid North Coast in 2014, aged three. No-one has ever been charged over William's disappearance. The woman denies any involvement in his disappearance.
