Please explain the monkey business
South Tyneside's action against Twitter needs further justification
Posted by Siobhain Butterworth, Tuesday 31 May 2011 11.30 BST guardian.co.uk
Twitter has handed South Tyneside council information about some of its users following the local authority's successful court application in California against the social network, for a disclosure order.
South Tyneside is in pursuit of the author of "Mr Monkey", a blogger who is said to have defamed three council members and a council official. A council spokesman said that the cost of this overseas adventure was around £75,000.
Much has been written already about whether Twitter should or shouldn't have provided details that may identify the users in question, but a policy of complying with court orders isn't exactly odious and, as James Ball points out, it appears that Twitter tells users when such legal actions are on foot so that they can fight the proceedings if they object.
An equally important question is whether the action against Twitter is a proper use of taxpayer's money. A spokesman for South Tyneside said: "The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible."
While council members and employees can bring defamation proceedings in their own name, as long ago as 1993 it was settled that public authorities are in an entirely different position to individuals when it comes to protection of reputation.
When Derbyshire County Council tried to sue the Sunday Times over allegations about its conduct the House of Lords would have none of it: "It is of the highest importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism," said Lord Keith. "The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech".
It has not escaped anyone's attention that similar objections can be raised to the legal proceedings brought by the council against Twitter. Moreover, since local authorities are not entitled to sue for libel, South Tyneside has some further explaining to do. In particular, how, and for whose benefit, will the information it has garnered from Twitter be used?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Ex-Tory peer Lord Taylor jailed for expenses fraud
Ex-Tory peer Lord Taylor jailed for expenses fraud
Ex-Tory peer Lord Taylor of Warwick has been jailed for 12 months for falsely claiming £11,277 in parliamentary expenses.
Innocent chimp
Guilty chump
"He said he had made the false claims "in lieu of a salary", and had been acting on the advice of colleagues".
A barrister acting upon illegal advice, is no defence. Given that he fought the case all the way, I am surprised at the leniency of the sentence. Others who pleaded guilty early received more serious penalties.
SENTENCING REMARKS OF MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS
Ex-Tory peer Lord Taylor of Warwick has been jailed for 12 months for falsely claiming £11,277 in parliamentary expenses.
Innocent chimp
Guilty chump
"He said he had made the false claims "in lieu of a salary", and had been acting on the advice of colleagues".
A barrister acting upon illegal advice, is no defence. Given that he fought the case all the way, I am surprised at the leniency of the sentence. Others who pleaded guilty early received more serious penalties.
SENTENCING REMARKS OF MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS
The Manchester College faces fresh allegations
The Manchester College faces fresh allegations
New allegations surface about The Manchester College's courses at a second young offender institution
New allegations have been passed to ministers claiming that the country's biggest FE college and major provider of prisoner education has received public money to which it is not entitled.
Crispin Blunt, the prisons minister, has asked the Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA) to examine accusations that The Manchester College (TMC) may have been paid for non-existent courses at Wetherby Young Offender Institution (YOI), near Leeds.
The new allegations have surfaced before the ink is even dry on another investigation into The Manchester College's affairs – at Reading Young Offender Institution. This was ordered in January by the further education minister, John Hayes.
New allegations surface about The Manchester College's courses at a second young offender institution
New allegations have been passed to ministers claiming that the country's biggest FE college and major provider of prisoner education has received public money to which it is not entitled.
Crispin Blunt, the prisons minister, has asked the Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA) to examine accusations that The Manchester College (TMC) may have been paid for non-existent courses at Wetherby Young Offender Institution (YOI), near Leeds.
The new allegations have surfaced before the ink is even dry on another investigation into The Manchester College's affairs – at Reading Young Offender Institution. This was ordered in January by the further education minister, John Hayes.
Twitter users publishes fresh list of super-injunctions
Twitter users publishes fresh list of super-injunctions
Another Twitter user has openly defied the courts by publishing the details of 13 alleged super-injunctions.
By Martin Evans 6:34PM BST 30 May 2011
Just hours after the US based company caved into a legal challenge and agreed to release the personal details of an anonymous British blogger, a user taunted the authorities by posting the most detailed list of gagging orders yet.
The list, which appeared on Twitter, contained links to court documents as well as full names and even addresses of some people granted injunctions.
But not all of the information appeared to be accurate prompting further fears that innocent people were being unfairly tainted because of the rash of secrecy orders being granted.
As hundreds of followers began viewing the site the information was suddenly removed, but not before the names had begun to circulate widely on other websites.
At the weekend Twitter, which is based in California, agreed to hand over the details of a account holders in a bid to unmask a person who had been posting allegedly libellous comments about officials at South Tyneside Council.
The landmark case has potentially far reaching implications for Twitter users who have used the site anonymously to breach injunctions.
Earlier this month lawyers acting for the Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs issued a writ demanding Twitter release the details of a user who named their client as having taken out an injunction to hide an alleged extramarital affair with Imogen Thomas, a former reality television star.
Anyone knowingly breaching a court injunction by naming an individual could be found in contempt of court and fined or even jailed.
But with thousands of internet users ignoring the warnings, injunctions are becoming increasingly difficult to enforce.
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has also said he will use parliamentary privilege to name any celebrities with injunctions who threaten to prosecute those who reveal their identities.
He said celebrities should not be allowed to “erode British culture” by threatening to have people jailed for simply “gossiping about them”.
Another Twitter user has openly defied the courts by publishing the details of 13 alleged super-injunctions.
By Martin Evans 6:34PM BST 30 May 2011
Just hours after the US based company caved into a legal challenge and agreed to release the personal details of an anonymous British blogger, a user taunted the authorities by posting the most detailed list of gagging orders yet.
The list, which appeared on Twitter, contained links to court documents as well as full names and even addresses of some people granted injunctions.
But not all of the information appeared to be accurate prompting further fears that innocent people were being unfairly tainted because of the rash of secrecy orders being granted.
As hundreds of followers began viewing the site the information was suddenly removed, but not before the names had begun to circulate widely on other websites.
At the weekend Twitter, which is based in California, agreed to hand over the details of a account holders in a bid to unmask a person who had been posting allegedly libellous comments about officials at South Tyneside Council.
The landmark case has potentially far reaching implications for Twitter users who have used the site anonymously to breach injunctions.
Earlier this month lawyers acting for the Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs issued a writ demanding Twitter release the details of a user who named their client as having taken out an injunction to hide an alleged extramarital affair with Imogen Thomas, a former reality television star.
Anyone knowingly breaching a court injunction by naming an individual could be found in contempt of court and fined or even jailed.
But with thousands of internet users ignoring the warnings, injunctions are becoming increasingly difficult to enforce.
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has also said he will use parliamentary privilege to name any celebrities with injunctions who threaten to prosecute those who reveal their identities.
He said celebrities should not be allowed to “erode British culture” by threatening to have people jailed for simply “gossiping about them”.
The battle between Parliament and the judges has only just begun
The battle between Parliament and the judges has only just begun
The conflict over human rights will test our constitution to breaking point, writes Mary Riddell.
By Mary Riddell 7:23PM BST 30 May 2011
Jeremy Bentham, who denounced the French Declaration of the Rights of Man as "nonsense on stilts", might struggle to do justice to judgments of the English courts. Injunctions to protect footballers' privacy have exposed the law to ridicule, and human rights legislation is, in its critics' view, so ill-conceived as to make the Dangerous Dogs Act look like Magna Carta.
In the most recent supposed travesty, Wayne Bishop, 33, from Nottingham, has been freed from prison early after the Appeal Court decided that serving his full eight-month burglary sentence would damage the well-being of his five young children, for whom he is the sole carer during the week.
This verdict, based on Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (HRA), which guarantees respect for family life, has evoked the fury of those arguing that protections devised after the Second World War against oppression and slaughter have become a nonsense. Truly, in the words of Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist, the law is "a ass – a idiot".
Although the HRA played no part in Sharon Shoesmith's appeal, the Mr Bumbles also detect the ugly shadow of "rights" hanging over the verdict on Haringey's former children's services director, whose sacking was ruled to have violated the fundamental principle, enshrined in English law, of a fair hearing.
The widely accepted scoreline in the latest cases is Barmy Judges 2, Common Sense nil. That is a misreading. I do not seek to defend Bishop, a lawbreaker who failed his family. Even so, children whose parents are jailed are three times more likely to become delinquent than their peers and twice as prone to mental illness.
Almost two thirds of boys with a parent in jail go on to become offenders, according to the charity Barnardo's. Do these children, overlooked by nine in 10 local authorities, have no champion? Might citizens be better and more cheaply served by attempts to break a vicious circle than by unquestioningly locking up a parent for a relatively minor offence (Bishop, however unpleasant or inadequate, was involved in stealing chocolate from a rugby club)? Do politicians who laud the right sort of family really believe that children from the wrong sort should always pay so dearly for a parent's crime?
The judges assessed some, or all, of those questions, made their ruling and thus ensured that they would be pilloried as blancmange-brained old dupes applying a tainted law. Ed Balls, the former education secretary, phrased his dissent over the Sharon Shoesmith verdict a bit more decorously, declaring that he "strongly disagreed" with the legal opinion of a trio of judges, including the Master of the Rolls.
Forget the obnoxious crowing by Ms Shoesmith or the appalling failures of the Baby P case, for which she bears much blame. The court, in deciding that Mr Balls, who sacked her at a televised press conference, flouted proper procedures and that Haringey followed suit, was merely interpreting the law as laid down by Parliament.
The rage unleashed by the verdict in the Shoesmith case is illustrative of the mounting hostility between the judiciary and Parliament. Judges and politicians do not, and should not, always agree. The danger is that their differences, for which the catalyst is usually though not invariably human rights, become a power battle leading to constitutional meltdown. That zero-sum game has begun.
The fight is not merely arm-wrestling between two different limbs of the constitution. The third player is the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, with a jurisdiction stretching from Reykjavik to Vladivostock and encompassing the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
Tensions between these three have already brought Britain to what some regard as the brink of constitutional crisis. In fact, the stand-off has barely started. Coming over the horizon are three issues that may test the current settlement to breaking point. The first is prisoner voting. In February, Parliament decided, by a majority of 212, to defy a 2005 ruling by the Strasbourg court to outlaw a blanket ban. With the appeal process exhausted, Britain now has no legal option but to offer some prisoners the vote, as is the common European practice.
Meanwhile, two other judgments are expected from the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The first, Al Khawaja v UK, deals with a doctor convicted in 2005 of indecent assault, largely on the witness statement of a patient who committed suicide before the trial began. The court ruled the trial unfair because of the use, permitted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, of hearsay evidence. Although our Supreme Court has urged a rethink, Eric Metcalfe, of the campaigning group Justice, thinks Strasbourg is likely to stand firm, thus unleashing the wrath of British judges.
The second, incendiary case, Othman v UK, concerns the radical cleric Abu Qatada, suspected of al-Qaeda links and arguably Britain's most hated man. The Government wants to deport him to Jordan, but it looks more than likely that Strasbourg will refuse, on the grounds that he would face torture. If so, the ensuing furore will make footballers' injunctions seem as minor as a fixed-penalty notice.
If our unwritten constitution is going to withstand the coming upheavals, Britain must decide its stance on human rights. To that end, David Cameron has set up a commission on whether the HRA can be replaced with a British Bill of Rights. The answer, unlikely to be speedy, is probably not. Next week, Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, will set out Labour's position in a speech entitled A Fair Trial for the Human Rights Act. Mr Khan is likely to argue that, instead of letting lazy caricatures prevail, government should stress that human rights legislation has outlawed modern slavery, stopped rape victims being cross-examined by their alleged molesters and shielded the individual from the excesses of the state.
As he has rightly said before, the HRA "stands tall as [a] proud accomplishment" of the Labour government. Those who wish – fancifully – to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, or to scrap the British law, risk frustrating the urgent changes that are required. The over-burdened Strasbourg court does need reform. In some areas, such as freedom of expression, the Supreme Court should be at liberty to assert the primacy of English law. The HRA privacy clause, the result of a parliamentary fudge, should be reworked.
There will be no prospect of progress, and every chance of disaster, unless judges pick their fights with care (no more easy injunctions for rich adulterers), politicians stop abusing their role (no more treating the Commons chamber like the parliamentary wing of Twitter) and society abandons an insular view of human rights under which unpopular minorities, prisoners included, are the legitimate prey of the lynch mob.
As Ratko Mladic, the butcher of Srebrenica, is shuffled towards the dock, it pays to recall the blood sacrifice, the genocide and the torture that ensue when the rule of law collapses and human rights are scorned. Fulminating politicians, murmuring judges, greedy lawyers and outraged citizens should all remember the necessary compromises of a nation purporting to be just and fair and free.
The conflict over human rights will test our constitution to breaking point, writes Mary Riddell.
By Mary Riddell 7:23PM BST 30 May 2011
Jeremy Bentham, who denounced the French Declaration of the Rights of Man as "nonsense on stilts", might struggle to do justice to judgments of the English courts. Injunctions to protect footballers' privacy have exposed the law to ridicule, and human rights legislation is, in its critics' view, so ill-conceived as to make the Dangerous Dogs Act look like Magna Carta.
In the most recent supposed travesty, Wayne Bishop, 33, from Nottingham, has been freed from prison early after the Appeal Court decided that serving his full eight-month burglary sentence would damage the well-being of his five young children, for whom he is the sole carer during the week.
This verdict, based on Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (HRA), which guarantees respect for family life, has evoked the fury of those arguing that protections devised after the Second World War against oppression and slaughter have become a nonsense. Truly, in the words of Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist, the law is "a ass – a idiot".
Although the HRA played no part in Sharon Shoesmith's appeal, the Mr Bumbles also detect the ugly shadow of "rights" hanging over the verdict on Haringey's former children's services director, whose sacking was ruled to have violated the fundamental principle, enshrined in English law, of a fair hearing.
The widely accepted scoreline in the latest cases is Barmy Judges 2, Common Sense nil. That is a misreading. I do not seek to defend Bishop, a lawbreaker who failed his family. Even so, children whose parents are jailed are three times more likely to become delinquent than their peers and twice as prone to mental illness.
Almost two thirds of boys with a parent in jail go on to become offenders, according to the charity Barnardo's. Do these children, overlooked by nine in 10 local authorities, have no champion? Might citizens be better and more cheaply served by attempts to break a vicious circle than by unquestioningly locking up a parent for a relatively minor offence (Bishop, however unpleasant or inadequate, was involved in stealing chocolate from a rugby club)? Do politicians who laud the right sort of family really believe that children from the wrong sort should always pay so dearly for a parent's crime?
The judges assessed some, or all, of those questions, made their ruling and thus ensured that they would be pilloried as blancmange-brained old dupes applying a tainted law. Ed Balls, the former education secretary, phrased his dissent over the Sharon Shoesmith verdict a bit more decorously, declaring that he "strongly disagreed" with the legal opinion of a trio of judges, including the Master of the Rolls.
Forget the obnoxious crowing by Ms Shoesmith or the appalling failures of the Baby P case, for which she bears much blame. The court, in deciding that Mr Balls, who sacked her at a televised press conference, flouted proper procedures and that Haringey followed suit, was merely interpreting the law as laid down by Parliament.
The rage unleashed by the verdict in the Shoesmith case is illustrative of the mounting hostility between the judiciary and Parliament. Judges and politicians do not, and should not, always agree. The danger is that their differences, for which the catalyst is usually though not invariably human rights, become a power battle leading to constitutional meltdown. That zero-sum game has begun.
The fight is not merely arm-wrestling between two different limbs of the constitution. The third player is the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, with a jurisdiction stretching from Reykjavik to Vladivostock and encompassing the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
Tensions between these three have already brought Britain to what some regard as the brink of constitutional crisis. In fact, the stand-off has barely started. Coming over the horizon are three issues that may test the current settlement to breaking point. The first is prisoner voting. In February, Parliament decided, by a majority of 212, to defy a 2005 ruling by the Strasbourg court to outlaw a blanket ban. With the appeal process exhausted, Britain now has no legal option but to offer some prisoners the vote, as is the common European practice.
Meanwhile, two other judgments are expected from the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The first, Al Khawaja v UK, deals with a doctor convicted in 2005 of indecent assault, largely on the witness statement of a patient who committed suicide before the trial began. The court ruled the trial unfair because of the use, permitted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, of hearsay evidence. Although our Supreme Court has urged a rethink, Eric Metcalfe, of the campaigning group Justice, thinks Strasbourg is likely to stand firm, thus unleashing the wrath of British judges.
The second, incendiary case, Othman v UK, concerns the radical cleric Abu Qatada, suspected of al-Qaeda links and arguably Britain's most hated man. The Government wants to deport him to Jordan, but it looks more than likely that Strasbourg will refuse, on the grounds that he would face torture. If so, the ensuing furore will make footballers' injunctions seem as minor as a fixed-penalty notice.
If our unwritten constitution is going to withstand the coming upheavals, Britain must decide its stance on human rights. To that end, David Cameron has set up a commission on whether the HRA can be replaced with a British Bill of Rights. The answer, unlikely to be speedy, is probably not. Next week, Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, will set out Labour's position in a speech entitled A Fair Trial for the Human Rights Act. Mr Khan is likely to argue that, instead of letting lazy caricatures prevail, government should stress that human rights legislation has outlawed modern slavery, stopped rape victims being cross-examined by their alleged molesters and shielded the individual from the excesses of the state.
As he has rightly said before, the HRA "stands tall as [a] proud accomplishment" of the Labour government. Those who wish – fancifully – to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, or to scrap the British law, risk frustrating the urgent changes that are required. The over-burdened Strasbourg court does need reform. In some areas, such as freedom of expression, the Supreme Court should be at liberty to assert the primacy of English law. The HRA privacy clause, the result of a parliamentary fudge, should be reworked.
There will be no prospect of progress, and every chance of disaster, unless judges pick their fights with care (no more easy injunctions for rich adulterers), politicians stop abusing their role (no more treating the Commons chamber like the parliamentary wing of Twitter) and society abandons an insular view of human rights under which unpopular minorities, prisoners included, are the legitimate prey of the lynch mob.
As Ratko Mladic, the butcher of Srebrenica, is shuffled towards the dock, it pays to recall the blood sacrifice, the genocide and the torture that ensue when the rule of law collapses and human rights are scorned. Fulminating politicians, murmuring judges, greedy lawyers and outraged citizens should all remember the necessary compromises of a nation purporting to be just and fair and free.
Monday, May 30, 2011
The Jeremy Clarkson court judgment
The Jeremy Clarkson court judgment
Jeremy Clarkson
The Jeremy Clarkson court judgment seeking a gagging order on his ex-wife Alex James.
Jeremy Clarkson
The Jeremy Clarkson court judgment seeking a gagging order on his ex-wife Alex James.
South Tyneside County Council breaks the law!
South Tyneside County Council breaks the law!
It's a long way from South Tyneside to the Superior Court of California in the San Mateo County, it's a long way to roam...
Has Councillor Ahmed Khan been up to monkey business? If so, give that man a banana!
South Tyneside County Council is a public authority and as such exercises public power. There is no lawful authority to exercise public power for a private purpose. It is an established legal principle that South Tyneside County Council cannot be libelled not sue for libel. If a councillor believes that he or she has been libelled then it is a private matter between the councillor and the person who is alleged to have committed the libel, and the cost of bringing the libel proceedings, at least initially, must be met by the councillor in person and not by the council taxpayers.
If I was a South Tyneside council taxpayer I would be applying for a judicial review to challenge the decision to fund this private law action for private purpose out of the public purse.
As you can see below the case has not been filed by South Tyneside County Council, but instead has been filed by 4 private individuals; Iain Malcolm, David Potts, Anne Walsh and Rick O' Farrell.
A spokesman for South Tyneside Council said: "This legal action was initiated by the council's previous chief executive and has continued with the full support of the council's current chief executive.
"The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible."
The legal position is that South Tyneside council does not owe its employees a duty of care not to be libelled. Therefore this reason does not stand up to scrutiny. It would appear that the true reason for using public money for private purpose is to out the anonymous blogger Mr Monkey.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of anonymous bloggers and Twitters publishing defamatory statements, 2 wrongs do not make a right. The people of South Tyneside should be up in arms about the conduct of South Tyneside council and Iain Malcolm, David Potts, Anne Walsh and Rick O' Farrell!
Case CIV482779 - IAIN MALCOLM VS. DOES 1-10
Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: COMPLAINT
Filing Date: 04/06/2009
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PLAINTIFF IAIN MALCOLM KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
2 PLAINTIFF DAVID POTTS KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
3 PLAINTIFF ANNE WALSH KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
4 PLAINTIFF RICK O'FARRELL KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
5 DEFENDANT DOES 1-10 Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Corrupt councillor Iain Malcolm
Corrupt councillor David Potts
It's a long way from South Tyneside to the Superior Court of California in the San Mateo County, it's a long way to roam...
Has Councillor Ahmed Khan been up to monkey business? If so, give that man a banana!
South Tyneside County Council is a public authority and as such exercises public power. There is no lawful authority to exercise public power for a private purpose. It is an established legal principle that South Tyneside County Council cannot be libelled not sue for libel. If a councillor believes that he or she has been libelled then it is a private matter between the councillor and the person who is alleged to have committed the libel, and the cost of bringing the libel proceedings, at least initially, must be met by the councillor in person and not by the council taxpayers.
If I was a South Tyneside council taxpayer I would be applying for a judicial review to challenge the decision to fund this private law action for private purpose out of the public purse.
As you can see below the case has not been filed by South Tyneside County Council, but instead has been filed by 4 private individuals; Iain Malcolm, David Potts, Anne Walsh and Rick O' Farrell.
A spokesman for South Tyneside Council said: "This legal action was initiated by the council's previous chief executive and has continued with the full support of the council's current chief executive.
"The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible."
The legal position is that South Tyneside council does not owe its employees a duty of care not to be libelled. Therefore this reason does not stand up to scrutiny. It would appear that the true reason for using public money for private purpose is to out the anonymous blogger Mr Monkey.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of anonymous bloggers and Twitters publishing defamatory statements, 2 wrongs do not make a right. The people of South Tyneside should be up in arms about the conduct of South Tyneside council and Iain Malcolm, David Potts, Anne Walsh and Rick O' Farrell!
Case CIV482779 - IAIN MALCOLM VS. DOES 1-10
Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: COMPLAINT
Filing Date: 04/06/2009
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PLAINTIFF IAIN MALCOLM KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
2 PLAINTIFF DAVID POTTS KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
3 PLAINTIFF ANNE WALSH KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
4 PLAINTIFF RICK O'FARRELL KAYS, DAVID A First Paper Fee Paid
5 DEFENDANT DOES 1-10 Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)
Corrupt councillor Iain Malcolm
Corrupt councillor David Potts
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Monkey business and South Tyneside Council!
Monkey business and South Tyneside Council!
An unknown number of private citizens who were councillors and officials at a local authority, South Tyneside, have brought a private action "and filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California in the San Mateo County against “persons unknown”".
Why has South Tyneside County Council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of council taxpayers money on the private pursuit of outing Mr Monkey? As you can see, he has not posted on his blog since 2009. But, they are not pursuing Mr Monkey for his blog anymore instead they are seeking to unmask Mr Monkey via a Twitter account.
Mark Stephens, a leading media lawyer who has represented WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange after the US government sought to obtain his Twitter account details, said: “I think it is inappropriate for a local authority to spend money on this kind of exercise. Local authorities cannot sue for libel and, if individual councillors have been defamed, they should take proceedings at their own cost.”
UPDATE:
According to the BBC...
South Tyneside Council takes Twitter to court in US
An unknown number of private citizens who were councillors and officials at a local authority, South Tyneside, have brought a private action "and filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California in the San Mateo County against “persons unknown”".
Why has South Tyneside County Council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of council taxpayers money on the private pursuit of outing Mr Monkey? As you can see, he has not posted on his blog since 2009. But, they are not pursuing Mr Monkey for his blog anymore instead they are seeking to unmask Mr Monkey via a Twitter account.
Mark Stephens, a leading media lawyer who has represented WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange after the US government sought to obtain his Twitter account details, said: “I think it is inappropriate for a local authority to spend money on this kind of exercise. Local authorities cannot sue for libel and, if individual councillors have been defamed, they should take proceedings at their own cost.”
UPDATE:
According to the BBC...
South Tyneside Council takes Twitter to court in US
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Zam, ban, thank you Man!
Zam, ban, thank you Man!
The mysterious case of "Mr Zam", who is a financier, is not an issue engaging Article 8 right to a private life v Article 10 freedom of expression under the European Convention of Human Rights. Rather, the central issue is that "Mr Zam" claims that he is the victim of libels made by "CFW" and "TFW". "Mr Zam" through his lawyers, Farrer & Co LLP, on 3 March 2011, sought an interim injunction in the High Court to prevent further publication of the alleged libels and the anonymised Order was granted by Mr Justice Tugendhat.
Apparently, Mr Justice Tugendhat granted the highly unusual anonymised Order on the "grounds that it would be unfair for him ["Mr Zam"] and his family to suffer speculation about the circumstances that had led them to make use of the powers of the high court".
It has to be said that not only is the ground pathetically weak but also the judge's reason for granting it is pathetic! Given that "Mr Zam" is well aware of the circumstances that led him to make the application how is he personally to suffer speculation? Surely, in relation to the family, the very secrecy of the proceedings invites speculation? In short, the reasons being advanced do not stack up to scrutiny. Could there be a hidden agenda to "Mr Zam's" legal action?
Mr Justice Tugendhat's secret Order made on 3 March 2011 was published on the internet on 4 March 2011 by "TFW" or an agent acting for him. Given that "TFW" is in Rome, and that the jurisdiction of the High Court only extends to the borders of England and Wales, the secret Order has no enforcement power.
Farrer & Co LLP acting for "Mr Zam" applied to the High Court to commit "CFW" to prison for contempt of court. Given that "CFW" lives in Cambridge she is bound by the terms of the secret Order. At a secret hearing on 25 May 2011, Mr Richard Spearman QC (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) for "Mr Zam" no longer argued for contempt of court proceedings and "told the court that an agreeement had now been reached with the woman". Whatever, it would have been difficult to prove that "CFW" played any part in publication of the secret Order.
By publication of the secret Order it is difficult to see any justification for its continued secrecy.
JOHIM Global Investment Fund PLC
Fund Manager: Charles Martyn-Hemphill
Biography: Charles joined JOHIM from Spencer House Capital Management (SHCM in February 2011) to manage specialist global equity mandates. Charles joined SHCM in 2006 and was CEO from August 2008. Prior to joining SHCM Charles spent 26 years at Morgan Grenfell and Deutsche Asset Management (DEAM). His most recent position there was Managing Director and Head of the Global Select Equity team. During his term at DEAM, Charles also served as Head of the Private Client Division, Head of International Equities for UK pension fund clients and was a Fund Director for a number of the group’s domestic and international clients. Charles serves as a trustee of charitable and family trusts and is the chairman of the board of governors at St. Mary’s School Ascot. He graduated from Oxford with a degree in Modern History.
It is not clear what Charles Martyn-Hemphill's financial status was prior to marrying into money. Could there be a conflict of interest in being both a financier and trustee of a family trust? For example, under Charles Martyn-Hemphill:
"Spencer House posts 75% drop in operating profits
Phil Craig
17 Aug 2009
Spencer House Capital Management, a fund boutique launched by Jacob Rothschild three years ago, suffered a 75% fall in profits in its latest financial year".
One of the so-called libels relate to financial irregularity. Another so-called libel relates to an accusation of paedophila.
St Mary's School, Ascot
The allegations relate to Father Dermot. He is presently unavailable at the school. It is alleged that Father Dermot is a friend of Charles Martyn-Hemphill who is Chairman of the school's Board of Governors. According to the school "the accusations are historic". The school confirm that Father Dermot has been the subject of investigation. Apparently, Father Dermot has been cleared to resume at the school after the term holiday. Could it be that Charles Martyn-Hemphill was part of the inquiry? If so, is this not another case of a conflict of interest?
There may or may not be truth to the allegations of financial impropriety, etc, but given that both parties have decided to do their dirty washing in public shouldn't they be properly aired?
The mysterious case of "Mr Zam", who is a financier, is not an issue engaging Article 8 right to a private life v Article 10 freedom of expression under the European Convention of Human Rights. Rather, the central issue is that "Mr Zam" claims that he is the victim of libels made by "CFW" and "TFW". "Mr Zam" through his lawyers, Farrer & Co LLP, on 3 March 2011, sought an interim injunction in the High Court to prevent further publication of the alleged libels and the anonymised Order was granted by Mr Justice Tugendhat.
Apparently, Mr Justice Tugendhat granted the highly unusual anonymised Order on the "grounds that it would be unfair for him ["Mr Zam"] and his family to suffer speculation about the circumstances that had led them to make use of the powers of the high court".
It has to be said that not only is the ground pathetically weak but also the judge's reason for granting it is pathetic! Given that "Mr Zam" is well aware of the circumstances that led him to make the application how is he personally to suffer speculation? Surely, in relation to the family, the very secrecy of the proceedings invites speculation? In short, the reasons being advanced do not stack up to scrutiny. Could there be a hidden agenda to "Mr Zam's" legal action?
Mr Justice Tugendhat's secret Order made on 3 March 2011 was published on the internet on 4 March 2011 by "TFW" or an agent acting for him. Given that "TFW" is in Rome, and that the jurisdiction of the High Court only extends to the borders of England and Wales, the secret Order has no enforcement power.
Farrer & Co LLP acting for "Mr Zam" applied to the High Court to commit "CFW" to prison for contempt of court. Given that "CFW" lives in Cambridge she is bound by the terms of the secret Order. At a secret hearing on 25 May 2011, Mr Richard Spearman QC (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) for "Mr Zam" no longer argued for contempt of court proceedings and "told the court that an agreeement had now been reached with the woman". Whatever, it would have been difficult to prove that "CFW" played any part in publication of the secret Order.
By publication of the secret Order it is difficult to see any justification for its continued secrecy.
JOHIM Global Investment Fund PLC
Fund Manager: Charles Martyn-Hemphill
Biography: Charles joined JOHIM from Spencer House Capital Management (SHCM in February 2011) to manage specialist global equity mandates. Charles joined SHCM in 2006 and was CEO from August 2008. Prior to joining SHCM Charles spent 26 years at Morgan Grenfell and Deutsche Asset Management (DEAM). His most recent position there was Managing Director and Head of the Global Select Equity team. During his term at DEAM, Charles also served as Head of the Private Client Division, Head of International Equities for UK pension fund clients and was a Fund Director for a number of the group’s domestic and international clients. Charles serves as a trustee of charitable and family trusts and is the chairman of the board of governors at St. Mary’s School Ascot. He graduated from Oxford with a degree in Modern History.
It is not clear what Charles Martyn-Hemphill's financial status was prior to marrying into money. Could there be a conflict of interest in being both a financier and trustee of a family trust? For example, under Charles Martyn-Hemphill:
"Spencer House posts 75% drop in operating profits
Phil Craig
17 Aug 2009
Spencer House Capital Management, a fund boutique launched by Jacob Rothschild three years ago, suffered a 75% fall in profits in its latest financial year".
One of the so-called libels relate to financial irregularity. Another so-called libel relates to an accusation of paedophila.
St Mary's School, Ascot
The allegations relate to Father Dermot. He is presently unavailable at the school. It is alleged that Father Dermot is a friend of Charles Martyn-Hemphill who is Chairman of the school's Board of Governors. According to the school "the accusations are historic". The school confirm that Father Dermot has been the subject of investigation. Apparently, Father Dermot has been cleared to resume at the school after the term holiday. Could it be that Charles Martyn-Hemphill was part of the inquiry? If so, is this not another case of a conflict of interest?
There may or may not be truth to the allegations of financial impropriety, etc, but given that both parties have decided to do their dirty washing in public shouldn't they be properly aired?
Corrupt prison officer jailed
Corrupt prison officer jailed
By Ella Pickover, Press Association
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Police today pledged to crack down on corrupt prison officers after a male officer was jailed for smuggling drugs to inmates.
Richard Carew, 34, "abused his position of authority" by taking cannabis and mobile phones into Pentonville Prison inside hidden compartments in clocks and cans of drink, Scotland Yard said.
The former officer at the north London prison was jailed for five years at Southwark Crown Court yesterday, a police spokesman said.
Acting Detective Inspector Neil Smithson, of the London Prisons Anti-Corruption Team, said: "Carew abused his position of authority in a prison and assisted in setting up a drug dealing gang with willing participants both inside and outside the cells.
"We take this kind of misconduct very seriously and will always seek to prosecute anyone who attempts to exploit the prison service in this way.
"As the judge in this case said, Carew committed a gross breach of trust."
Carew was arrested at his home in Celt Close, Sittingbourne, Kent, in June last year. Officers found 12 mobile phones ready to be smuggled into the prison and while looking at his computer they discovered that he had searched on the internet for 'hidden compartment hideaway wall clock', 'hidden compartment walking shoes' and 'diet coke can safe - stash tin'.
In December, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply class B drugs, conspiracy to take mobile phones into prison, unauthorised electronic communication from within a prison and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.
By Ella Pickover, Press Association
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Police today pledged to crack down on corrupt prison officers after a male officer was jailed for smuggling drugs to inmates.
Richard Carew, 34, "abused his position of authority" by taking cannabis and mobile phones into Pentonville Prison inside hidden compartments in clocks and cans of drink, Scotland Yard said.
The former officer at the north London prison was jailed for five years at Southwark Crown Court yesterday, a police spokesman said.
Acting Detective Inspector Neil Smithson, of the London Prisons Anti-Corruption Team, said: "Carew abused his position of authority in a prison and assisted in setting up a drug dealing gang with willing participants both inside and outside the cells.
"We take this kind of misconduct very seriously and will always seek to prosecute anyone who attempts to exploit the prison service in this way.
"As the judge in this case said, Carew committed a gross breach of trust."
Carew was arrested at his home in Celt Close, Sittingbourne, Kent, in June last year. Officers found 12 mobile phones ready to be smuggled into the prison and while looking at his computer they discovered that he had searched on the internet for 'hidden compartment hideaway wall clock', 'hidden compartment walking shoes' and 'diet coke can safe - stash tin'.
In December, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply class B drugs, conspiracy to take mobile phones into prison, unauthorised electronic communication from within a prison and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.
Goodwin's mistress fails in High Court bid
Goodwin's mistress fails in High Court bid
The mistress of Sir Fred Goodwin yesterday failed to persuade a High Court judge to help keep her identity secret.
Susan Bor the mistress of Sir Fred Goodwin
By Steven Swinford 9:00AM BST 28 May 2011
The woman went to the High Court to complain about a newspaper article which she said “deliberately flouted” an anonymity order.
She asked Mr Justice Tugendhat to refer her complaint to the Attorney General, who would then decide whether to prosecute.
But the judge, sitting in London, announced yesterday that he had declined to make the reference.
John Hemming, the back-bench Liberal Democrat MP, revealed earlier this year in the Commons that Sir Fred Goodwin had obtained a gagging order barring the publication of details about his private life.
Last week Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, disclosed in the House of Lords that the order related to a sexual relationship with a senior colleague.
In a written judgement, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: “The applicant is a lady with whom Sir Frederick Goodwin is alleged to have had an affair while both were working for RBS, before RBS had to be rescued by public funds some 18 months or so ago."
Giving his decision, he said: "The reason that I decline to make the reference is that, in my judgment, it would not assist the Attorney General.
"The lady is free to refer the matter to the Attorney General herself, and the Attorney General is free to act of his own motion.
"This case has received extensive coverage in many newspapers and other news media and has been the subject of public judgments.
"If the Attorney General does decide to consider this matter, the contents of this judgment will be available to him."
Lawyers for the Daily Mail said there had been no "deliberate intention" to flout or frustrate the court order and argued that a report in the newspaper had not breached it.
The relationship between Mr Goodwin and his senior colleague is being investigated by the Financial Services Authority, the regulator, as part of a report on the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Sir Fred, nicknamed Fred "the shred" for his management style, presided over the near collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which needed a £20 billion bail-out by the taxpayer.
He left with a pension of £700,000 a year and a lump sum of nearly £3 million. Following a public outcry he later agreed to reduce his payout by £200,000 a year.
The mistress of Sir Fred Goodwin yesterday failed to persuade a High Court judge to help keep her identity secret.
Susan Bor the mistress of Sir Fred Goodwin
By Steven Swinford 9:00AM BST 28 May 2011
The woman went to the High Court to complain about a newspaper article which she said “deliberately flouted” an anonymity order.
She asked Mr Justice Tugendhat to refer her complaint to the Attorney General, who would then decide whether to prosecute.
But the judge, sitting in London, announced yesterday that he had declined to make the reference.
John Hemming, the back-bench Liberal Democrat MP, revealed earlier this year in the Commons that Sir Fred Goodwin had obtained a gagging order barring the publication of details about his private life.
Last week Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, disclosed in the House of Lords that the order related to a sexual relationship with a senior colleague.
In a written judgement, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: “The applicant is a lady with whom Sir Frederick Goodwin is alleged to have had an affair while both were working for RBS, before RBS had to be rescued by public funds some 18 months or so ago."
Giving his decision, he said: "The reason that I decline to make the reference is that, in my judgment, it would not assist the Attorney General.
"The lady is free to refer the matter to the Attorney General herself, and the Attorney General is free to act of his own motion.
"This case has received extensive coverage in many newspapers and other news media and has been the subject of public judgments.
"If the Attorney General does decide to consider this matter, the contents of this judgment will be available to him."
Lawyers for the Daily Mail said there had been no "deliberate intention" to flout or frustrate the court order and argued that a report in the newspaper had not breached it.
The relationship between Mr Goodwin and his senior colleague is being investigated by the Financial Services Authority, the regulator, as part of a report on the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Sir Fred, nicknamed Fred "the shred" for his management style, presided over the near collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which needed a £20 billion bail-out by the taxpayer.
He left with a pension of £700,000 a year and a lump sum of nearly £3 million. Following a public outcry he later agreed to reduce his payout by £200,000 a year.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Judge ordered Lord Sugar to remove expenses 'tweet'
Judge ordered Lord Sugar to remove expenses 'tweet'
Lord Sugar was told to remove a Twitter message speculating on whether a peer on trial for expenses fraud would be cleared because he was a Conservative, it has emerged.
A Judge ordered the Labour peer and Apprentice star to take down the post in January during the trial of Lord Taylor, who was ultimately convicted.
Justice Saunders ruled the message could unfairly influence jurors.
The media was prevented from reporting the matter at the time.
Lord Sugar was told to remove a Twitter message speculating on whether a peer on trial for expenses fraud would be cleared because he was a Conservative, it has emerged.
A Judge ordered the Labour peer and Apprentice star to take down the post in January during the trial of Lord Taylor, who was ultimately convicted.
Justice Saunders ruled the message could unfairly influence jurors.
The media was prevented from reporting the matter at the time.
Unlock's submission to the Council of Europe
Unlock's submission to the Council of Europe
Unlock's submission to the Council of Europe on convicted prisoners human right to vote
Comment: I fully support this submission.
Unlock's submission to the Council of Europe on convicted prisoners human right to vote
Comment: I fully support this submission.
Lord Hanningfield convicted over parliamentary expenses
Lord Hanningfield convicted over parliamentary expenses
The peer and former Essex Council leader Lord Hanningfield has been found guilty of fidding his expenses.
Paul White, 70, had denied six counts of false accounting relating to his parliamentary expenses.
The prosecution said he had claimed for overnight stays in London between March 2006 and April 2009, when he had actually returned home to Essex.
The peer told the court he had seen it as a "living-out-of-London allowance" rather than overnight subsistence.
The peer and former Essex Council leader Lord Hanningfield has been found guilty of fidding his expenses.
Paul White, 70, had denied six counts of false accounting relating to his parliamentary expenses.
The prosecution said he had claimed for overnight stays in London between March 2006 and April 2009, when he had actually returned home to Essex.
The peer told the court he had seen it as a "living-out-of-London allowance" rather than overnight subsistence.
Police left mentally ill prisoner to take fatal overdose – police watchdog
Police left mentally ill prisoner to take fatal overdose – police watchdog
Newport police officer fined and others reprimanded over death in custody of Andrew David Sheppard
Police failed to keep a proper watch on Andrew David Sheppard, a mentally ill man who died in custody of a drug overdose, the Independent Police Complaints Commission found. Photograph: Charles O'Rear/Corbis
Police have been criticised by the official watchdog after a young man with mental health problems died of a drug overdose apparently taken in custody.
Andrew David Sheppard, 22, had been detained under the Mental Health Act and died after spending a night in a cell at the central police station in Newport, south Wales.
Sheppard was found to have cocaine and other drugs in his system and forensic analysis suggested he had taken the substances while in custody.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said individual officers had failed and Gwent police's custody practices of the time needed to be revised.
The IPCC commissioner for Wales, Tom Davies, said: "Andrew Sheppard was a very troubled young man. On the day he was eventually detained by the police for his own safety, both he and his family had sought help. He was taken to hospital by his family but then decided himself to leave.
"Once Mr Sheppard had been detained by the police and taken to what is known as 'a place of safety' he was owed a duty of care by the custody staff. It was clear that he was vulnerable.
"Those custody staff for a variety of reasons did not keep proper records, did not check on Mr Sheppard with the frequency that they should have done, and nor did they keep him under proper observation.
"We have said on numerous occasions that custody is the wrong place for somebody with mental health problems and who invariably may also have taken substances, but we accept that sometimes it is the only place available.
"We sought expert forensic analysis which showed that in all probability Mr Sheppard had taken drugs during the time he was in custody, which shows how poor the observation of him had been that night."
One custody sergeant was fined 13 days' pay and three custody sergeants reprimanded. Four custody detention officers received management advice, along with one of the police constables who detained Sheppard.
The IPCC made eight recommendations to the force about its custody policy, which it said had been implemented since the incident in September 2006.
Newport police officer fined and others reprimanded over death in custody of Andrew David Sheppard
Police failed to keep a proper watch on Andrew David Sheppard, a mentally ill man who died in custody of a drug overdose, the Independent Police Complaints Commission found. Photograph: Charles O'Rear/Corbis
Police have been criticised by the official watchdog after a young man with mental health problems died of a drug overdose apparently taken in custody.
Andrew David Sheppard, 22, had been detained under the Mental Health Act and died after spending a night in a cell at the central police station in Newport, south Wales.
Sheppard was found to have cocaine and other drugs in his system and forensic analysis suggested he had taken the substances while in custody.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said individual officers had failed and Gwent police's custody practices of the time needed to be revised.
The IPCC commissioner for Wales, Tom Davies, said: "Andrew Sheppard was a very troubled young man. On the day he was eventually detained by the police for his own safety, both he and his family had sought help. He was taken to hospital by his family but then decided himself to leave.
"Once Mr Sheppard had been detained by the police and taken to what is known as 'a place of safety' he was owed a duty of care by the custody staff. It was clear that he was vulnerable.
"Those custody staff for a variety of reasons did not keep proper records, did not check on Mr Sheppard with the frequency that they should have done, and nor did they keep him under proper observation.
"We have said on numerous occasions that custody is the wrong place for somebody with mental health problems and who invariably may also have taken substances, but we accept that sometimes it is the only place available.
"We sought expert forensic analysis which showed that in all probability Mr Sheppard had taken drugs during the time he was in custody, which shows how poor the observation of him had been that night."
One custody sergeant was fined 13 days' pay and three custody sergeants reprimanded. Four custody detention officers received management advice, along with one of the police constables who detained Sheppard.
The IPCC made eight recommendations to the force about its custody policy, which it said had been implemented since the incident in September 2006.
Eight years average term for rape
Eight years average term for rape
PA
Thursday, 26 May 2011
One in seven rapists is sentenced to four years or less in jail, figures showed today.
But the average prison term for rape is more than eight years, compared with just over six years for manslaughter, the Ministry of Justice figures showed.
The report comes after Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke vowed to "reflect carefully" on his proposals to halve all sentences for offenders who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Mother-of-two Gabrielle Browne, the victim of an attempted rape, met Mr Clarke earlier this week after declaring his plans were a "disaster" on the radio.
She said yesterday that she was sure Mr Clarke would consider her views before announcing his final plans and added she had been persuaded that his ideas were "fair enough" in an attempt to reduce victims' trauma and cut costs.
Of the 984 rapists jailed last year, 134 were given four years or less, the criminal justice statistics showed.
Two out of five (377) were given between five and 10 years, while one in five (188) was given more than 10 years but less than life.
A total of 13 rapists were sentenced to life in prison, with one in five (180) jailed indefinitely for public protection.
The average sentence was just over eight years.
PA
Thursday, 26 May 2011
One in seven rapists is sentenced to four years or less in jail, figures showed today.
But the average prison term for rape is more than eight years, compared with just over six years for manslaughter, the Ministry of Justice figures showed.
The report comes after Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke vowed to "reflect carefully" on his proposals to halve all sentences for offenders who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Mother-of-two Gabrielle Browne, the victim of an attempted rape, met Mr Clarke earlier this week after declaring his plans were a "disaster" on the radio.
She said yesterday that she was sure Mr Clarke would consider her views before announcing his final plans and added she had been persuaded that his ideas were "fair enough" in an attempt to reduce victims' trauma and cut costs.
Of the 984 rapists jailed last year, 134 were given four years or less, the criminal justice statistics showed.
Two out of five (377) were given between five and 10 years, while one in five (188) was given more than 10 years but less than life.
A total of 13 rapists were sentenced to life in prison, with one in five (180) jailed indefinitely for public protection.
The average sentence was just over eight years.
Police find bar for inmates at prison in Mexico
Police find bar for inmates at prison in Mexico
Police have discovered a bar at prison in northern Mexico that served beer, tequila and vodka to inmates.
Security at Mexican state prisons is notoriously lax Photo: EPA
A spokesman for Chihuahua state's prosecutor for prisons says the deputy director of the prison where the bar was discovered has been fired. Spokesman Jorge Chaires said on Wednesday that guards at the low-security prison are under investigation.
The bar was discovered on Monday at the prison in Chihuahua city, the state capital. Federal police and state authorities confiscated 200 beer cans, 12 bottles of tequila and 20 bottles of vodka. The bar also had a billiard table.
Also on Wednesday, guards conducting a routine check at a prison in the northern state of Tamaulipas discovered 17 inmates missing, the state's Public Safety Department said in a statement. The prison is located in Reynosa, across the border from McAllen, Texas.
Authorities later found a tunnel leading out of the prison from the laundry room, the statement said. The prison's director and eight guards were being questioned.
Security at Mexican state prisons is notoriously lax. Jailbreaks are common, inmates are often found to be directing criminal operations from behind bars, and corrupt guards are often found to be involved.
Police have discovered a bar at prison in northern Mexico that served beer, tequila and vodka to inmates.
Security at Mexican state prisons is notoriously lax Photo: EPA
A spokesman for Chihuahua state's prosecutor for prisons says the deputy director of the prison where the bar was discovered has been fired. Spokesman Jorge Chaires said on Wednesday that guards at the low-security prison are under investigation.
The bar was discovered on Monday at the prison in Chihuahua city, the state capital. Federal police and state authorities confiscated 200 beer cans, 12 bottles of tequila and 20 bottles of vodka. The bar also had a billiard table.
Also on Wednesday, guards conducting a routine check at a prison in the northern state of Tamaulipas discovered 17 inmates missing, the state's Public Safety Department said in a statement. The prison is located in Reynosa, across the border from McAllen, Texas.
Authorities later found a tunnel leading out of the prison from the laundry room, the statement said. The prison's director and eight guards were being questioned.
Security at Mexican state prisons is notoriously lax. Jailbreaks are common, inmates are often found to be directing criminal operations from behind bars, and corrupt guards are often found to be involved.
Judge claims wife punched herself
Judge claims wife punched herself
A deputy High Court judge assaulted his wife during a row after he became “irritated” that she was comforting their cleaner while he was left without supper, a court was told yesterday.
James Allen QC Photo: ROSS PARRY
James Allen QC, 62, told the court that his wife’s bruises were self-inflicted after she punched herself in the face. He claimed that, as the row continued, his wife snatched his glasses and crushed them to stop him leaving, before trying to grab the car keys from the ignition.
Bradford magistrates were told that Melanie Allen was cooking the evening meal when their cleaner, Amanda Clark, arrived and wanted to speak to her. Mr Allen was unaware that Mrs Clark’s mother had just been diagnosed with cancer. He took a file from his study and went upstairs to read until he heard Mrs Clark leave the house in Wakefield 90 minutes later.
“To be honest, I was irritable,” he told the court. “When I entered the kitchen I told the wife I was not very happy with Mrs Clark having visited. I had had nothing to eat all day and could not be bothered now.” He said the argument became more heated and he intended to drive away while his wife, an assistant deputy coroner, “cooled off”.
“I decided the best thing would be to put some distance between us,” said Mr Clark. “I started to move towards the kitchen door. My wife placed her body between myself and the kitchen door and repeated I was not leaving.” His wife then balled her fists and struck herself in the face in front of him.
When he managed to reach the garage doors, he said, his wife grabbed his glasses from his face and screwed them up. As one of the garage doors started to rise, it struck his wife’s leg, causing her to stumble.
Mrs Allen then jumped into the passenger seat, reached over and tried to reach the keys. The judge said he used one hand to fend her off and she tried to bite his hand.
He finally drove off and spent the night at his parents’ home 10 miles away.
The judge, married for 14 years, had been due to fly to the Isle of Man the next evening for a week-long sitting but when he agreed to be interviewed by police the next afternoon, he was arrested and held in a police cell. He was subsequently bailed with a condition he live at his parents’ home.
The row happened in February last year but in April, the judge said, he returned to live with his wife and had been there ever since.
Mr Allen said his wife had harmed herself before, including cutting her wrist, after which he had taken her to Pinderfields Hospital in Wakefield.
Under cross-examination, he admitted that, with hindsight, he should have checked his wife’s injuries.
“In hindsight, I should have taken her in my arms and told her I loved her. But this was in the heat of an argument,” he added.
Mrs Allen, 45, told the court she had acted “pathetically” when her husband tried to leave.
She claimed she hit herself in the face three times with clenched fists out of sheer frustration in the hope he would not go.
She said it never crossed her mind what the police would do.
“I just wanted to bring James to his senses,” she said.
Mr Allen denies common assault. The trial continues.
A deputy High Court judge assaulted his wife during a row after he became “irritated” that she was comforting their cleaner while he was left without supper, a court was told yesterday.
James Allen QC Photo: ROSS PARRY
James Allen QC, 62, told the court that his wife’s bruises were self-inflicted after she punched herself in the face. He claimed that, as the row continued, his wife snatched his glasses and crushed them to stop him leaving, before trying to grab the car keys from the ignition.
Bradford magistrates were told that Melanie Allen was cooking the evening meal when their cleaner, Amanda Clark, arrived and wanted to speak to her. Mr Allen was unaware that Mrs Clark’s mother had just been diagnosed with cancer. He took a file from his study and went upstairs to read until he heard Mrs Clark leave the house in Wakefield 90 minutes later.
“To be honest, I was irritable,” he told the court. “When I entered the kitchen I told the wife I was not very happy with Mrs Clark having visited. I had had nothing to eat all day and could not be bothered now.” He said the argument became more heated and he intended to drive away while his wife, an assistant deputy coroner, “cooled off”.
“I decided the best thing would be to put some distance between us,” said Mr Clark. “I started to move towards the kitchen door. My wife placed her body between myself and the kitchen door and repeated I was not leaving.” His wife then balled her fists and struck herself in the face in front of him.
When he managed to reach the garage doors, he said, his wife grabbed his glasses from his face and screwed them up. As one of the garage doors started to rise, it struck his wife’s leg, causing her to stumble.
Mrs Allen then jumped into the passenger seat, reached over and tried to reach the keys. The judge said he used one hand to fend her off and she tried to bite his hand.
He finally drove off and spent the night at his parents’ home 10 miles away.
The judge, married for 14 years, had been due to fly to the Isle of Man the next evening for a week-long sitting but when he agreed to be interviewed by police the next afternoon, he was arrested and held in a police cell. He was subsequently bailed with a condition he live at his parents’ home.
The row happened in February last year but in April, the judge said, he returned to live with his wife and had been there ever since.
Mr Allen said his wife had harmed herself before, including cutting her wrist, after which he had taken her to Pinderfields Hospital in Wakefield.
Under cross-examination, he admitted that, with hindsight, he should have checked his wife’s injuries.
“In hindsight, I should have taken her in my arms and told her I loved her. But this was in the heat of an argument,” he added.
Mrs Allen, 45, told the court she had acted “pathetically” when her husband tried to leave.
She claimed she hit herself in the face three times with clenched fists out of sheer frustration in the hope he would not go.
She said it never crossed her mind what the police would do.
“I just wanted to bring James to his senses,” she said.
Mr Allen denies common assault. The trial continues.
Founder of electric shock autism treatment school forced to quit
Founder of electric shock autism treatment school forced to quit
Institute uses punishment machine to discipline severely autistic and emotionally disturbed children by giving them electric shocks
The founder of a controversial school that treats severely autistic and emotionally disturbed children by shocking them into submission with the use of electrodes has been forced to quit the institution and serve five years' probation.
Matthew Israel, a Harvard-trained psychologist, has created a treatment that is unique to the US and possibly the world. The Judge Rotenberg Center, just outside Boston, disciplines its students using a punishment machine that Israel invented called the GED, which gives a two-second electric shock to the skin of up to 90 milliamps.
At the centre, which was profiled by the Guardian earlier this year, students wear backpacks around the clock with the GED electric generators inside them, and are zapped using remote control devices controlled by their carers. In some cases, they are shocked as often as 30 times a day as a means of dissuading them from behaviour deemed dangerous to themselves or others.
The criminal charges brought against Israel relate to an incident in August 2007 at one of the school's residential homes where students sleep at night. A call came in from someone posing as an authorised supervisor, who informed the carers on duty that two teenagers had misbehaved and should be given shock treatment.
At 2am, the boys were strapped on boards and given multiple shocks. One of the boys, aged 18, was shocked 77 times over a three-hour period and the other boy, aged 16, was shocked 29 times. It was later discovered that the initial call had been a hoax.
The Massachusetts attorney general, Martha Coakley, indicted Israel over allegations that he ordered his staff to destroy video evidence that revealed exactly what happened that night. Prosecutors had previously ordered that the video recordings from the home were preserved.
"Dr Israel then attempted to destroy evidence of the events and mislead investigators, and that conduct led to his indictments today. Today's action removes Dr Israel from the school and should ensure better protection for students in the future," Coakley said.
The conviction is a substantial blow to Israel, who has weathered a storm of protest about his controversial methods for 40 years. He announced his retirement from the school on 2 May, without referring to the pending criminal case. He said he was moving to California, where his wife Judy lives.
"I am now almost 78 years old, and it is time for me to move over and let others take the reins," he said in a resignation letter.
But his departure will not materially change the way the school operates, crucially its technique of disciplining children by meting out electric shocks as a form of supposedly therapeutic punishment. Of the school's 225 students, 97 are currently on the electric shock regime.
The terms of the plea deal struck between Israel and the prosecutors require the school to introduce additional monitoring to prevent a similar lapse of security happening again. But the shocks themselves can continue.
"The case was only about Israel's conduct, it did not address the way the school is run," a spokesman for the attorney general's office said.
Laurie Ahern of Disability Rights International, which has been a persistent critic of the school, said that without an end to the shocks, Israel's departure would be irrelevant. "I don't see any radical change at the moment."
Hillary Cook, who spent three years at the school until 2009, and who was regularly shocked, said that whatever happened to Israel, she wanted to see the regime of shocks abolished. "I'm just worried about the kids who live there, because I know what it's like. They say the shocks are like a bee sting, and believe me they are not. It should be illegal to physically harm children and disabled people in this country."
The school has been a subject of huge controversy over past decades, with regular attempts to shut it down. Last year its use of electric shocks was attacked as a form of torture by the UN rapporteur on torture.
In February, the justice department opened an investigation into the school after it received a complaint alleging the centre had violated disability laws.
Despite the negative publicity directed at him, Israel managed to keep operating for so long partly because he had the vociferous support of parents of severely autistic children at the school.
The centre rarely uses drugs on its students, in contrast to many other homes for autistic people where heavy doses of psychotropic drugs are prescribed. At the time of Israel's resignation, Louisa Goldberg, whose son has been on the shock regime for the past 11 years, said that "Dr Israel's pioneering efforts have given our child back his life and we are extremely grateful for all that he has done for our family."
Institute uses punishment machine to discipline severely autistic and emotionally disturbed children by giving them electric shocks
The founder of a controversial school that treats severely autistic and emotionally disturbed children by shocking them into submission with the use of electrodes has been forced to quit the institution and serve five years' probation.
Matthew Israel, a Harvard-trained psychologist, has created a treatment that is unique to the US and possibly the world. The Judge Rotenberg Center, just outside Boston, disciplines its students using a punishment machine that Israel invented called the GED, which gives a two-second electric shock to the skin of up to 90 milliamps.
At the centre, which was profiled by the Guardian earlier this year, students wear backpacks around the clock with the GED electric generators inside them, and are zapped using remote control devices controlled by their carers. In some cases, they are shocked as often as 30 times a day as a means of dissuading them from behaviour deemed dangerous to themselves or others.
The criminal charges brought against Israel relate to an incident in August 2007 at one of the school's residential homes where students sleep at night. A call came in from someone posing as an authorised supervisor, who informed the carers on duty that two teenagers had misbehaved and should be given shock treatment.
At 2am, the boys were strapped on boards and given multiple shocks. One of the boys, aged 18, was shocked 77 times over a three-hour period and the other boy, aged 16, was shocked 29 times. It was later discovered that the initial call had been a hoax.
The Massachusetts attorney general, Martha Coakley, indicted Israel over allegations that he ordered his staff to destroy video evidence that revealed exactly what happened that night. Prosecutors had previously ordered that the video recordings from the home were preserved.
"Dr Israel then attempted to destroy evidence of the events and mislead investigators, and that conduct led to his indictments today. Today's action removes Dr Israel from the school and should ensure better protection for students in the future," Coakley said.
The conviction is a substantial blow to Israel, who has weathered a storm of protest about his controversial methods for 40 years. He announced his retirement from the school on 2 May, without referring to the pending criminal case. He said he was moving to California, where his wife Judy lives.
"I am now almost 78 years old, and it is time for me to move over and let others take the reins," he said in a resignation letter.
But his departure will not materially change the way the school operates, crucially its technique of disciplining children by meting out electric shocks as a form of supposedly therapeutic punishment. Of the school's 225 students, 97 are currently on the electric shock regime.
The terms of the plea deal struck between Israel and the prosecutors require the school to introduce additional monitoring to prevent a similar lapse of security happening again. But the shocks themselves can continue.
"The case was only about Israel's conduct, it did not address the way the school is run," a spokesman for the attorney general's office said.
Laurie Ahern of Disability Rights International, which has been a persistent critic of the school, said that without an end to the shocks, Israel's departure would be irrelevant. "I don't see any radical change at the moment."
Hillary Cook, who spent three years at the school until 2009, and who was regularly shocked, said that whatever happened to Israel, she wanted to see the regime of shocks abolished. "I'm just worried about the kids who live there, because I know what it's like. They say the shocks are like a bee sting, and believe me they are not. It should be illegal to physically harm children and disabled people in this country."
The school has been a subject of huge controversy over past decades, with regular attempts to shut it down. Last year its use of electric shocks was attacked as a form of torture by the UN rapporteur on torture.
In February, the justice department opened an investigation into the school after it received a complaint alleging the centre had violated disability laws.
Despite the negative publicity directed at him, Israel managed to keep operating for so long partly because he had the vociferous support of parents of severely autistic children at the school.
The centre rarely uses drugs on its students, in contrast to many other homes for autistic people where heavy doses of psychotropic drugs are prescribed. At the time of Israel's resignation, Louisa Goldberg, whose son has been on the shock regime for the past 11 years, said that "Dr Israel's pioneering efforts have given our child back his life and we are extremely grateful for all that he has done for our family."
Many youth detainees from care home
Many youth detainees from care home
Press Association, Thursday May 26 2011
One in four children held in young offenders' institutions have been in care, inspectors have revealed.
Nick Hardwick, chief inspector of prisons, said the fact that around 400 children who have been in care are in custody at any one time was "a cause for real concern".
He also said little progress has been made to close the "substantive gaps in the planning and care of looked-after children in custody" over the past five years.
Many young people are being released with inadequate support, some without even an address to go to, and three of the 10 young people released and interviewed by inspectors were back in custody within a month, the report found.
Within three months, seven of the 10 children had been convicted of further offences, with four returning to prison.
While the involvement of local authorities often depended on the commitment of individual social workers, a third of custody safeguarding teams "felt that some social workers tried to end their involvement while the young person was in custody".
The report, which polled young people and staff at seven institutions between May and October last year, found adequate and early planning for release was a key concern.
"Accommodation was often not confirmed until close to the young person's release or, occasionally, even the day of release," Mr Hardwick said.
Penelope Gibbs, director of the Prison Reform Trust's Out of Trouble programme, said the report showed the system "simply is not working".
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "The Government recognises that young people in custody are some of the most vulnerable young people in society and that effective resettlement and support is essential to breaking the cycle of offending."
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2011, All Rights Reserved.
Press Association, Thursday May 26 2011
One in four children held in young offenders' institutions have been in care, inspectors have revealed.
Nick Hardwick, chief inspector of prisons, said the fact that around 400 children who have been in care are in custody at any one time was "a cause for real concern".
He also said little progress has been made to close the "substantive gaps in the planning and care of looked-after children in custody" over the past five years.
Many young people are being released with inadequate support, some without even an address to go to, and three of the 10 young people released and interviewed by inspectors were back in custody within a month, the report found.
Within three months, seven of the 10 children had been convicted of further offences, with four returning to prison.
While the involvement of local authorities often depended on the commitment of individual social workers, a third of custody safeguarding teams "felt that some social workers tried to end their involvement while the young person was in custody".
The report, which polled young people and staff at seven institutions between May and October last year, found adequate and early planning for release was a key concern.
"Accommodation was often not confirmed until close to the young person's release or, occasionally, even the day of release," Mr Hardwick said.
Penelope Gibbs, director of the Prison Reform Trust's Out of Trouble programme, said the report showed the system "simply is not working".
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "The Government recognises that young people in custody are some of the most vulnerable young people in society and that effective resettlement and support is essential to breaking the cycle of offending."
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2011, All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Judge defends role in financier's secret libel suit
Judge defends role in financier's secret libel suit
Justice Tugendhat says he was right to make all the parties anonymous in case pitting 'Zam' against his sister-in-law
The judge who has allowed a financier to bring a secret libel suit against his own sister-in-law defended his decision to make all the parties anonymous on Wednesday, in the wake of the uproar over superinjunctions and the outing of footballer Ryan Giggs in defiance of court orders.
Mr Justice Tugendhat, at a high court hearing in London where the financier was only allowed to be referred to as Zam, said that although his grant of anonymity in a case of libel was "unusual", it was not the first time such a thing had occurred. He said there had been another occasion when it had happened – in a 1997 case known as "P versus T".
He stressed that the sister-in-law and her husband were not only accused of circulating libellously untrue stories but also of harassment of the wealthy financier. In a previous judgment, the judge referred to suggestions of blackmail, but police have not apparently been involved in the civil case. The family are engaged in a dispute over shares in a £100m offshore trust fund.
The hearing took place following an application by Zam's lawyers to have his sister-in-law, who lives in England, jailed for contempt of court, because full details of the case and Zam's name have been posted on the internet, and she was allegedly linked to the postings.
The prospect of her imprisonment receded on Wednesday when Richard Spearman QC, counsel for the financier, told the court that an agreeement had now been reached with the woman.
Her husband, who also cannot be named under the judge's order, lives in Rome, along with business associates, where he is outside the court's jurisidiction and apparently cannot be stopped from making internet postings. The court was told legal moves against him had now also been postponed.
Last week, a committee of lawyers, headed by Lord Neuberger, master of the rolls, said that people who went to court to gain injunctions should only be granted anonymity where it was "strictly necessary".
Previously, however, lawyers for Zam had successfully claimed anonymity for their client on the more limited grounds that it would be unfair for him and his family to suffer speculation about the circumstances that had led them to make use of the powers of the high court.
Comment: Original story and secret order here.
Justice Tugendhat says he was right to make all the parties anonymous in case pitting 'Zam' against his sister-in-law
The judge who has allowed a financier to bring a secret libel suit against his own sister-in-law defended his decision to make all the parties anonymous on Wednesday, in the wake of the uproar over superinjunctions and the outing of footballer Ryan Giggs in defiance of court orders.
Mr Justice Tugendhat, at a high court hearing in London where the financier was only allowed to be referred to as Zam, said that although his grant of anonymity in a case of libel was "unusual", it was not the first time such a thing had occurred. He said there had been another occasion when it had happened – in a 1997 case known as "P versus T".
He stressed that the sister-in-law and her husband were not only accused of circulating libellously untrue stories but also of harassment of the wealthy financier. In a previous judgment, the judge referred to suggestions of blackmail, but police have not apparently been involved in the civil case. The family are engaged in a dispute over shares in a £100m offshore trust fund.
The hearing took place following an application by Zam's lawyers to have his sister-in-law, who lives in England, jailed for contempt of court, because full details of the case and Zam's name have been posted on the internet, and she was allegedly linked to the postings.
The prospect of her imprisonment receded on Wednesday when Richard Spearman QC, counsel for the financier, told the court that an agreeement had now been reached with the woman.
Her husband, who also cannot be named under the judge's order, lives in Rome, along with business associates, where he is outside the court's jurisidiction and apparently cannot be stopped from making internet postings. The court was told legal moves against him had now also been postponed.
Last week, a committee of lawyers, headed by Lord Neuberger, master of the rolls, said that people who went to court to gain injunctions should only be granted anonymity where it was "strictly necessary".
Previously, however, lawyers for Zam had successfully claimed anonymity for their client on the more limited grounds that it would be unfair for him and his family to suffer speculation about the circumstances that had led them to make use of the powers of the high court.
Comment: Original story and secret order here.
Fred Goodwin gagging order
Fred Goodwin gagging order
Fred Goodwin gagging order
The Order prevents us from knowing that Sir Fred Goodwin was bonking his RBS colleague Susan Bor.
Original judgment MNB and News Group Newspapers Ltd
Latest judgment Sir Frederick Goodwin and News Group Newspapers Ltd
Fred Goodwin gagging order
The Order prevents us from knowing that Sir Fred Goodwin was bonking his RBS colleague Susan Bor.
Original judgment MNB and News Group Newspapers Ltd
Latest judgment Sir Frederick Goodwin and News Group Newspapers Ltd
Home Office falsely imprisoned sex offender
Home Office falsely imprisoned sex offender
Shepard Kambadzi was detained under immigration law powers day before he was due to be released
Hundreds of foreign national prisoners like Mohamoud are being detained indefinitely when they can't be deported. The supreme court ruling gives hope to long-term detainees
Video.
The Home Office falsely imprisoned a convicted sex offender in immigration detention for two years because of a failure to carry out regular reviews, a court has ruled.
The supreme court verdict is the end of a three-year legal battle for Shepard Kambadzi, a failed asylum seeker from Zimbabwe who was detained while the Home Office tried to remove him from the UK.
Kambadzi arrived in the UK in 2002 on a visitor's visa that ran out in 2004. In December 2005 he was convicted of assault and sexual assault and sentenced to 12 months in prison.
The day before he was due to be released he was detained under immigration act powers.
Two years later in April 2008, with Kambadzi still in detention, his lawyers took the case to the high court, arguing that holding him was unlawful because it was not reviewed on the required monthly basis. No review was carried out at all in the first 10 months of his detention.
He was released in June 2008 but has still not been removed to Zimbabwe because of conditions there.
At an earlier stage of the case, high court judge Justice Munby described as "casual mendacity" a Home Office practice in which the writing of monthly progress reports "seemed to have predated the actual decision".
Foreign national prisoners first became a pressing issue for the Home Office in 2006. Charles Clarke was forced to resign as home secretary when it was discovered that around 1,000 foreign national prisoners had been released without being considered for removal.
Clarke's successor, John Reid, introduced a tougher policy that all foreign nationals would be detained at the end of a criminal sentence.
Lawyers say the policy has led to hundreds of people being held despite there being no way to remove them quickly from the country.
Shepard Kambadzi was detained under immigration law powers day before he was due to be released
Hundreds of foreign national prisoners like Mohamoud are being detained indefinitely when they can't be deported. The supreme court ruling gives hope to long-term detainees
Video.
The Home Office falsely imprisoned a convicted sex offender in immigration detention for two years because of a failure to carry out regular reviews, a court has ruled.
The supreme court verdict is the end of a three-year legal battle for Shepard Kambadzi, a failed asylum seeker from Zimbabwe who was detained while the Home Office tried to remove him from the UK.
Kambadzi arrived in the UK in 2002 on a visitor's visa that ran out in 2004. In December 2005 he was convicted of assault and sexual assault and sentenced to 12 months in prison.
The day before he was due to be released he was detained under immigration act powers.
Two years later in April 2008, with Kambadzi still in detention, his lawyers took the case to the high court, arguing that holding him was unlawful because it was not reviewed on the required monthly basis. No review was carried out at all in the first 10 months of his detention.
He was released in June 2008 but has still not been removed to Zimbabwe because of conditions there.
At an earlier stage of the case, high court judge Justice Munby described as "casual mendacity" a Home Office practice in which the writing of monthly progress reports "seemed to have predated the actual decision".
Foreign national prisoners first became a pressing issue for the Home Office in 2006. Charles Clarke was forced to resign as home secretary when it was discovered that around 1,000 foreign national prisoners had been released without being considered for removal.
Clarke's successor, John Reid, introduced a tougher policy that all foreign nationals would be detained at the end of a criminal sentence.
Lawyers say the policy has led to hundreds of people being held despite there being no way to remove them quickly from the country.
Gordon Ramsay's father-in-law fails to retain superinjunction
Gordon Ramsay's father-in-law fails to retain superinjunction
Chris Hutcheson can be named in a case involving his family after court of appeal partially lifts privacy order
Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay had fallen out with father-in-law Chris Hutcheson last year. Photograph: Mike Segar/Reuters
A superinjunction obtained by the father-in-law of the television chef Gordon Ramsay has been partially lifted by an order of the court of appeal.
Chris Hutcheson failed in an attempt to retain an injunction gagging the press in a case involving his family.
The decision is a further setback to the power of privacy orders to restrict reporting and comes on the day after an MP named Ryan Giggs as the footballer identified on Twitter as having brought an injunction to prevent publication of allegations he had an affair.
Hutcheson can be named after the court partially lifted anonymity over the legal action.
He had appealed against a refusal in December by high court judge Mr Justice Eady to grant him an interim injunction restraining newspapers from publishing "private information".
Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Hutcheson, said the case related to "family issues – conduct which might well be said to be morally blameworthy" but not criminal or regulatory misconduct.
Upholding Justice Eady's decision, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, said: "We consider he was right to dismiss KGM's [ Hutcheson's] application for restraint on publication of certain information."
Tomlinson said Hutcheson's case was that the information he was seeking to keep out of the newspapers was "purely a private matter of concern only to him and a small number of other individuals".
He was "not a public figure, not a premiership footballer" and he did not hold any public office or official position.
Hutcheson and his celebrity chef son-in-law parted company last October in a public falling out.
The Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lord Justice Etherton and Lord Justice Gross, will consider on Wednesday what material from the high court judgment can now be disclosed to the public.
He warned that, until then, details of the judgment must not be published.
But he added that newspapers and the media could use information about the case before then if it came "from an independent source".
The appeal court decision was a victory for the publishers of The Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Mail, which had opposed Hutcheson's application for a gagging order.
Chris Hutcheson can be named in a case involving his family after court of appeal partially lifts privacy order
Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay had fallen out with father-in-law Chris Hutcheson last year. Photograph: Mike Segar/Reuters
A superinjunction obtained by the father-in-law of the television chef Gordon Ramsay has been partially lifted by an order of the court of appeal.
Chris Hutcheson failed in an attempt to retain an injunction gagging the press in a case involving his family.
The decision is a further setback to the power of privacy orders to restrict reporting and comes on the day after an MP named Ryan Giggs as the footballer identified on Twitter as having brought an injunction to prevent publication of allegations he had an affair.
Hutcheson can be named after the court partially lifted anonymity over the legal action.
He had appealed against a refusal in December by high court judge Mr Justice Eady to grant him an interim injunction restraining newspapers from publishing "private information".
Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Hutcheson, said the case related to "family issues – conduct which might well be said to be morally blameworthy" but not criminal or regulatory misconduct.
Upholding Justice Eady's decision, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, said: "We consider he was right to dismiss KGM's [ Hutcheson's] application for restraint on publication of certain information."
Tomlinson said Hutcheson's case was that the information he was seeking to keep out of the newspapers was "purely a private matter of concern only to him and a small number of other individuals".
He was "not a public figure, not a premiership footballer" and he did not hold any public office or official position.
Hutcheson and his celebrity chef son-in-law parted company last October in a public falling out.
The Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lord Justice Etherton and Lord Justice Gross, will consider on Wednesday what material from the high court judgment can now be disclosed to the public.
He warned that, until then, details of the judgment must not be published.
But he added that newspapers and the media could use information about the case before then if it came "from an independent source".
The appeal court decision was a victory for the publishers of The Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Mail, which had opposed Hutcheson's application for a gagging order.
The untold story of gagging orders
The untold story of gagging orders
Hundreds of other reporting restrictions remain in force, and the public knows next to nothing about them
By Cahal Milmo, Oliver Wright and Nigel Morris
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
GETTY IMAGES Ryan Giggs has been named in Parliament as having taken an injunction out
The extent of court privacy injunctions in British public life and the media can be revealed today after an analysis by The Independent found that more than 333 gagging orders protecting the identities of celebrities, children and private individuals have been granted in the past five years.
As the ramifications of the naming in Parliament of footballer Ryan Giggs continued to fuel the debate over injunctions, MPs renewed calls for the Ministry of Justice to begin collating figures for the number of privacy orders being granted in Britain's courts after a senior judge warned that the absence of reliable data was undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
The secret nature of super-injunctions and other restrictive orders means that no definitive figures exist for the number of rulings currently in force in England and Wales – despite a rash of revelations which has seen a number of high-profile individuals, from the broadcaster Andrew Marr to the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin, unmasked as recipients.
An audit by The Independent has found that at least 264 orders exist which grant anonymity to children or vulnerable adults. But the figures reveal a further 69 cases where injunctions have been granted barring the publication of the names of high-profile individuals, including 28 men accused of extra-marital affairs and nine cases where convicted criminals have been granted anonymity. Courts are ready to issue gagging orders in a wide-ranging and occasionally surprising number of circumstances, including the case of a lawyer accused of possessing a quantity of hardcore pornography and an order preventing disclosure of the identity of a sex change candidate.
The data highlights the importance of anonymity orders, which concern at least six allegations of blackmail, where the victims include a Premier League footballer and a prominent aristocrat.
Orders have also been granted to at least seven major companies, including the publicly owned bank Northern Rock. The orders, some of which are permanent and some temporary, prevent publication of allegations about their commercial affairs.
The true number of anonymised injunctions is likely to be higher but the analysis highlights an alarming gap in public knowledge about the extent to which the courts are granting gagging orders. Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, has said it is "impossible to verify" the number of rulings being handed down which make it a criminal offence to publish certain information about individuals. His report into injunctions on Friday stated: "The absence of evidence has encouraged a view that an entirely secret process has developed in the civil courts, and that this is improper in principle, risks neutering press freedom to report matters of public interest and undermines the public's right to be informed of court proceedings."
A senior MP last night called on the Government to swiftly enforce the report's finding that the Ministry of Justice should start recording how many injunctions containing publicity restrictions are applied for and granted.
John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, said: "This is something which we called for a year ago and we have yet to see this information. As a result it is very difficult to know the extent of 'privacy creep' within the courts."
The controversy is set to be raised by David Cameron and other world leaders at a summit in France tomorrow. British government sources confirmed they expected the storm surrounding the naming of Ryan Giggs to be discussed at a meeting of G8 leaders in Deauville, where Nicolas Sarkozy is pressing for tougher regulation of the internet to protect copyright and privacy, though Mr Cameron may be sceptical about how this could be applied. But a UK source said: "The mechanisms of regulation and the hurdles before you intervene are quite high."
Meanwhile, John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP who named Mr Giggs, said he was aware of 10 recipients of super-injunctions amid criticism of his decision to use parliamentary privilege to reveal the footballer's identity. He said: "I think in some ways naming Ryan Giggs lances the boil. It has brought the whole issue out in the open, which is where it should be."
The untold story
The 333 gagging orders analysed by The Independent include:
* A footballer alleging blackmail after a group-sex session in a hotel was captured on mobile phone video
* A male celebrity with a disabled son
* At least four child abusers protecting their new identities
* A company accused of pollution
* A member of the public who didn't want the press to report his sex change
* A television personality who received death threats
* A woman who had a laptop containing her sex videos stolen
* A paedophile who gained an injunction prohibiting reporting of his rehabilitation trips
* A football manager who strayed
* A gambling spouse
* A betting company that obtained an injunction against disclosing information about its clients' betting
* A murderer's ex-girlfriend given a new identity – and the psychiatrist who assessed her
* A blackmailed aristocrat
* A "leading actor" who slept with Helen Wood (only she can be named)
* Tens of Premier League footballers who are family men in public but who are in reality promiscuous cheats
* A media personality who denied alcohol addiction
* A sportsman's child who is subject to court proceedings
* An actress whose laptop containing intimate photographs was stolen
* At least half a dozen since unmasked, among them the commodities trader Trafigura, Andrew Marr (who broke his own injunction), Sir Fred Goodwin, John Terry, Ryan Giggs (named in Parliament), and the News of the World's "Fake Sheikh" Mazher Mahmood (the paper tried to stop photos of him from being distributed).
* And hundreds of anonymity orders preventing the media from doing anything that would lead to the identification of children whose parents or carers are accused of murder, child abuse or other crimes.
Hundreds of other reporting restrictions remain in force, and the public knows next to nothing about them
By Cahal Milmo, Oliver Wright and Nigel Morris
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
GETTY IMAGES Ryan Giggs has been named in Parliament as having taken an injunction out
The extent of court privacy injunctions in British public life and the media can be revealed today after an analysis by The Independent found that more than 333 gagging orders protecting the identities of celebrities, children and private individuals have been granted in the past five years.
As the ramifications of the naming in Parliament of footballer Ryan Giggs continued to fuel the debate over injunctions, MPs renewed calls for the Ministry of Justice to begin collating figures for the number of privacy orders being granted in Britain's courts after a senior judge warned that the absence of reliable data was undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
The secret nature of super-injunctions and other restrictive orders means that no definitive figures exist for the number of rulings currently in force in England and Wales – despite a rash of revelations which has seen a number of high-profile individuals, from the broadcaster Andrew Marr to the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin, unmasked as recipients.
An audit by The Independent has found that at least 264 orders exist which grant anonymity to children or vulnerable adults. But the figures reveal a further 69 cases where injunctions have been granted barring the publication of the names of high-profile individuals, including 28 men accused of extra-marital affairs and nine cases where convicted criminals have been granted anonymity. Courts are ready to issue gagging orders in a wide-ranging and occasionally surprising number of circumstances, including the case of a lawyer accused of possessing a quantity of hardcore pornography and an order preventing disclosure of the identity of a sex change candidate.
The data highlights the importance of anonymity orders, which concern at least six allegations of blackmail, where the victims include a Premier League footballer and a prominent aristocrat.
Orders have also been granted to at least seven major companies, including the publicly owned bank Northern Rock. The orders, some of which are permanent and some temporary, prevent publication of allegations about their commercial affairs.
The true number of anonymised injunctions is likely to be higher but the analysis highlights an alarming gap in public knowledge about the extent to which the courts are granting gagging orders. Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, has said it is "impossible to verify" the number of rulings being handed down which make it a criminal offence to publish certain information about individuals. His report into injunctions on Friday stated: "The absence of evidence has encouraged a view that an entirely secret process has developed in the civil courts, and that this is improper in principle, risks neutering press freedom to report matters of public interest and undermines the public's right to be informed of court proceedings."
A senior MP last night called on the Government to swiftly enforce the report's finding that the Ministry of Justice should start recording how many injunctions containing publicity restrictions are applied for and granted.
John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, said: "This is something which we called for a year ago and we have yet to see this information. As a result it is very difficult to know the extent of 'privacy creep' within the courts."
The controversy is set to be raised by David Cameron and other world leaders at a summit in France tomorrow. British government sources confirmed they expected the storm surrounding the naming of Ryan Giggs to be discussed at a meeting of G8 leaders in Deauville, where Nicolas Sarkozy is pressing for tougher regulation of the internet to protect copyright and privacy, though Mr Cameron may be sceptical about how this could be applied. But a UK source said: "The mechanisms of regulation and the hurdles before you intervene are quite high."
Meanwhile, John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP who named Mr Giggs, said he was aware of 10 recipients of super-injunctions amid criticism of his decision to use parliamentary privilege to reveal the footballer's identity. He said: "I think in some ways naming Ryan Giggs lances the boil. It has brought the whole issue out in the open, which is where it should be."
The untold story
The 333 gagging orders analysed by The Independent include:
* A footballer alleging blackmail after a group-sex session in a hotel was captured on mobile phone video
* A male celebrity with a disabled son
* At least four child abusers protecting their new identities
* A company accused of pollution
* A member of the public who didn't want the press to report his sex change
* A television personality who received death threats
* A woman who had a laptop containing her sex videos stolen
* A paedophile who gained an injunction prohibiting reporting of his rehabilitation trips
* A football manager who strayed
* A gambling spouse
* A betting company that obtained an injunction against disclosing information about its clients' betting
* A murderer's ex-girlfriend given a new identity – and the psychiatrist who assessed her
* A blackmailed aristocrat
* A "leading actor" who slept with Helen Wood (only she can be named)
* Tens of Premier League footballers who are family men in public but who are in reality promiscuous cheats
* A media personality who denied alcohol addiction
* A sportsman's child who is subject to court proceedings
* An actress whose laptop containing intimate photographs was stolen
* At least half a dozen since unmasked, among them the commodities trader Trafigura, Andrew Marr (who broke his own injunction), Sir Fred Goodwin, John Terry, Ryan Giggs (named in Parliament), and the News of the World's "Fake Sheikh" Mazher Mahmood (the paper tried to stop photos of him from being distributed).
* And hundreds of anonymity orders preventing the media from doing anything that would lead to the identification of children whose parents or carers are accused of murder, child abuse or other crimes.
These restless reformers have left the constitution in disarray
These restless reformers have left the constitution in disarray
A wise politician should show restraint when tinkering with our system of government , writes Anthony King.
Super-injunctions are showing up the flaws in Britain's system of government Photo: Getty
By Anthony King 10:16PM BST 24 May 2011
The past few weeks have seen an increasingly bitter battle waged over the right to privacy, drawing in the courts, the media, the Houses of Parliament, and thousands of internet users. But it is not just super-injunctions that are highlighting the strains in our system of government. The truth is that the British constitution is in a greater state of disarray than at any time since the beginning of the last century, with almost every element – except the monarchy – subject to intense criticism and debate.
The reasons are not hard to identify. One of the most significant, especially in terms of the judiciary’s role, is that Britain’s decision to enter the Common Market in 1973 had ramifications far beyond joining a mere free-trade area. Yes, power has migrated from Westminster to Brussels, but within the UK it has also migrated from Whitehall and Parliament to the courts.
During the negotiations for entry, a Tory knight of the shires, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, was one of the few to draw attention to the significance of Article 3, Paragraph H of the Treaty of Rome, which obligated members of the EU to adjust their national law “to the extent necessary for the functioning of the Common Market”. That is still an obligation on the UK, and one that Britain’s courts decided a generation ago should take precedence over domestic law in doubtful cases. It was not their fault: given the terms of the Treaty, and the Heath government’s European Communities Act, they could not have decided any other way. As Lord Denning, a famous Master of the Rolls, said at the time: “The Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back.” Unlike most tides, the tide of European law never ebbs.
So joining Europe tilted the balance of political power towards the judges – but the judges themselves have tilted it further in their direction. This process began in the 1960s, when they started to extend their ancient right of “judicial review”. A generation ago, that phrase was scarcely known; now, it is on everyone’s lips.
The courts had always insisted that ministers of the Crown must act in accordance with the law. But now they required ministers to act “reasonably” and – more than that – not to violate what the judges called citizens’ “constitutional rights”. The hunger for power of successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, undoubtedly persuaded judges they had a bounden duty to curb abuses of executive power. Then the Blair government augmented their role still further by passing the 1998 Human Rights Act. Many individual judges advocated such an Act. Many did not. But once it was on the statute book, they had no choice but to enforce it. Judges could not ignore an Act of Parliament, and the Human Rights Act enjoined them to have due regard to both freedom of expression and individuals’ and families’ right to privacy. It gives them no useful guidance about where the balance should be struck.
This, in large part, explains the courts’ current dilemmas. Judges have no option but to judge. If they strike the balance in favour of privacy, they are lambasted by the press and held up to ridicule by hitherto unknown MPs. If they favour freedom of expression, they can be accused of failing in their duty to preserve privacy. If they follow European rulings and attempt to extend prisoners’ voting rights, they are slapped down by both the Prime Minister and a majority of MPs.
Most of these dilemmas cannot be resolved: they are the inevitable consequence of constitutional democracy. Ministers and MPs cannot complain if they pass laws which the courts then have to interpret, since the need for interpretation is inevitable. Even a new, wholly British, non-European Human Rights Act would almost certainly provide for both freedom of expression and the right to privacy – so the courts would be no better off than now. This is also why the Prime Minister is quite right to shy away from any new privacy law: it would be bound to be as vague – and therefore, from the courts’ point of view, as useless – as the existing system.
In other words, the current system has to be lived with. That involves MPs and judges recognising that each has a different job to do, and showing some sympathy for the other side’s difficulties and dilemmas. The spectacle of judges slagging off ministers and MPs, and ministers and MPs slagging off judges, demeans the system. No one wants the UK to look and smell like Italy. There is also a danger that the appointment of judges could become politicised, as with the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices in the US.
Another problem, strange as it may seem to say it, is the current fashion for “democracy”, in the form of pure people power. This is what ministers and MPs claim to be promoting when they criticise judges – or when they propose to give people a direct say in local policing, or to create a wholly or largely elected Upper House.
But pure people power may well on occasion be the enemy of liberty, or good government, or both. Reform of the House of Lords is a good example. An elected Upper House would undoubtedly be more democratic, but it is less clear that a chamber consisting largely of career politicians and nominees of the political parties would produce better government. So advancing the cause of Lords reform would almost certainly be a waste of everyone’s time: the UK would most probably not be better governed, and the people would not be grateful to be offered yet more chances to vote – and to vote for yet more full-time politicians.
The future of the United Kingdom is an altogether more serious matter. It is ironic that, at just the time when most republicans in Northern Ireland are reluctantly accepting the UK’s permanence, the Scots have elected an administration bent on breaking it up. The Scots are unlikely to vote for independence in anything like the near future, but the greatest challenge facing English statesmanship at the moment is to decide whether the UK is worth preserving and, if so, how it can be.
Alex Salmond is playing a long game, and clearly enjoying it. His aim is to provoke governments south of the border – of whichever party – into actions that will make independence appear more attractive than it does now. When the Scottish Parliament was created, the UK as a whole was prosperous and Labour was in power, or at least shared power, both at Westminster and in Scotland. Those two conditions no longer apply – so if David Cameron wants to preserve the Union, he is going to have to spend the next several years treading a delicate path between responding sympathetically to the SNP government’s initiatives and resisting its more outrageous demands.
The great 19th-century journalist Walter Bagehot once observed: “In well-framed polities, great innovation can only be occasional. If you are always altering your house, it is a sign either that you have a bad house or that you have an excessively restless disposition. There is something wrong somewhere.” The house called the United Kingdom is not in such bad shape at the moment, though it needs to be kept in good repair. But our political leaders show signs of having restless dispositions. In both word and deed, they might consider exercising greater restraint.
Anthony King is professor of government at Essex University and author of 'The British Constitution” (Oxford University Press)
A wise politician should show restraint when tinkering with our system of government , writes Anthony King.
Super-injunctions are showing up the flaws in Britain's system of government Photo: Getty
By Anthony King 10:16PM BST 24 May 2011
The past few weeks have seen an increasingly bitter battle waged over the right to privacy, drawing in the courts, the media, the Houses of Parliament, and thousands of internet users. But it is not just super-injunctions that are highlighting the strains in our system of government. The truth is that the British constitution is in a greater state of disarray than at any time since the beginning of the last century, with almost every element – except the monarchy – subject to intense criticism and debate.
The reasons are not hard to identify. One of the most significant, especially in terms of the judiciary’s role, is that Britain’s decision to enter the Common Market in 1973 had ramifications far beyond joining a mere free-trade area. Yes, power has migrated from Westminster to Brussels, but within the UK it has also migrated from Whitehall and Parliament to the courts.
During the negotiations for entry, a Tory knight of the shires, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, was one of the few to draw attention to the significance of Article 3, Paragraph H of the Treaty of Rome, which obligated members of the EU to adjust their national law “to the extent necessary for the functioning of the Common Market”. That is still an obligation on the UK, and one that Britain’s courts decided a generation ago should take precedence over domestic law in doubtful cases. It was not their fault: given the terms of the Treaty, and the Heath government’s European Communities Act, they could not have decided any other way. As Lord Denning, a famous Master of the Rolls, said at the time: “The Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back.” Unlike most tides, the tide of European law never ebbs.
So joining Europe tilted the balance of political power towards the judges – but the judges themselves have tilted it further in their direction. This process began in the 1960s, when they started to extend their ancient right of “judicial review”. A generation ago, that phrase was scarcely known; now, it is on everyone’s lips.
The courts had always insisted that ministers of the Crown must act in accordance with the law. But now they required ministers to act “reasonably” and – more than that – not to violate what the judges called citizens’ “constitutional rights”. The hunger for power of successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, undoubtedly persuaded judges they had a bounden duty to curb abuses of executive power. Then the Blair government augmented their role still further by passing the 1998 Human Rights Act. Many individual judges advocated such an Act. Many did not. But once it was on the statute book, they had no choice but to enforce it. Judges could not ignore an Act of Parliament, and the Human Rights Act enjoined them to have due regard to both freedom of expression and individuals’ and families’ right to privacy. It gives them no useful guidance about where the balance should be struck.
This, in large part, explains the courts’ current dilemmas. Judges have no option but to judge. If they strike the balance in favour of privacy, they are lambasted by the press and held up to ridicule by hitherto unknown MPs. If they favour freedom of expression, they can be accused of failing in their duty to preserve privacy. If they follow European rulings and attempt to extend prisoners’ voting rights, they are slapped down by both the Prime Minister and a majority of MPs.
Most of these dilemmas cannot be resolved: they are the inevitable consequence of constitutional democracy. Ministers and MPs cannot complain if they pass laws which the courts then have to interpret, since the need for interpretation is inevitable. Even a new, wholly British, non-European Human Rights Act would almost certainly provide for both freedom of expression and the right to privacy – so the courts would be no better off than now. This is also why the Prime Minister is quite right to shy away from any new privacy law: it would be bound to be as vague – and therefore, from the courts’ point of view, as useless – as the existing system.
In other words, the current system has to be lived with. That involves MPs and judges recognising that each has a different job to do, and showing some sympathy for the other side’s difficulties and dilemmas. The spectacle of judges slagging off ministers and MPs, and ministers and MPs slagging off judges, demeans the system. No one wants the UK to look and smell like Italy. There is also a danger that the appointment of judges could become politicised, as with the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices in the US.
Another problem, strange as it may seem to say it, is the current fashion for “democracy”, in the form of pure people power. This is what ministers and MPs claim to be promoting when they criticise judges – or when they propose to give people a direct say in local policing, or to create a wholly or largely elected Upper House.
But pure people power may well on occasion be the enemy of liberty, or good government, or both. Reform of the House of Lords is a good example. An elected Upper House would undoubtedly be more democratic, but it is less clear that a chamber consisting largely of career politicians and nominees of the political parties would produce better government. So advancing the cause of Lords reform would almost certainly be a waste of everyone’s time: the UK would most probably not be better governed, and the people would not be grateful to be offered yet more chances to vote – and to vote for yet more full-time politicians.
The future of the United Kingdom is an altogether more serious matter. It is ironic that, at just the time when most republicans in Northern Ireland are reluctantly accepting the UK’s permanence, the Scots have elected an administration bent on breaking it up. The Scots are unlikely to vote for independence in anything like the near future, but the greatest challenge facing English statesmanship at the moment is to decide whether the UK is worth preserving and, if so, how it can be.
Alex Salmond is playing a long game, and clearly enjoying it. His aim is to provoke governments south of the border – of whichever party – into actions that will make independence appear more attractive than it does now. When the Scottish Parliament was created, the UK as a whole was prosperous and Labour was in power, or at least shared power, both at Westminster and in Scotland. Those two conditions no longer apply – so if David Cameron wants to preserve the Union, he is going to have to spend the next several years treading a delicate path between responding sympathetically to the SNP government’s initiatives and resisting its more outrageous demands.
The great 19th-century journalist Walter Bagehot once observed: “In well-framed polities, great innovation can only be occasional. If you are always altering your house, it is a sign either that you have a bad house or that you have an excessively restless disposition. There is something wrong somewhere.” The house called the United Kingdom is not in such bad shape at the moment, though it needs to be kept in good repair. But our political leaders show signs of having restless dispositions. In both word and deed, they might consider exercising greater restraint.
Anthony King is professor of government at Essex University and author of 'The British Constitution” (Oxford University Press)
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
EC cited for contempt of court for disenfranchising prisoners
EC cited for contempt of court for disenfranchising prisoners
Dr. Afari Gyan
A civil rights group is citing the Electoral Commission for contempt of court.
The centre for constitutional order wants EC boss, Kwadwo Afari Gyan and his key staff punished for disobeying a Supreme Court order in March last year which gave the Commission twelve months to make regulations to enable the process that would allow prisoners to exercise their right to vote.
The order followed a declaration by the court granting prisoners the right to vote in national elections.
President of the centre, Dennis Ofosu-Apea, told Joy News his checks show a deliberate refusal to obey the orders of the court.
According to him, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, Dr Afari Gyan is not prepared, in fact disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling and will continue to disenfranchise the prisoners.
He has petitioned President Atta Mills over the matter and has asked the court to cause the immediate arrest and imprisonment of key officers of the EC.
Attempts by Joy News to get a reaction from the EC proved futile.
Source: Joy
News/Ghana
UPDATED:
Afari-Gyan explains delay in enfranchising prisoners
Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission
Chairman of the Electoral Commission of Ghana, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan has stated that his outfit has encountered a number of bottlenecks in implementing the Supreme Court’s decision to allow prisoners to vote.
Reacting on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show on Tuesday, to reports that the EC has been cited for contempt by a group for the Commission’s failure to execute the decision of the Supreme Court to allow prisoners to vote, Dr Afari-Gyan said the EC has been working steadily to ensure that the decision is put into action as soon as possible.
The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision on 24th March, 2010, gave the nod to all on remand and convicted prisoners in the country to exercise their franchise.
To cement its decision, the Court directed the EC to come out with a Legislative Instrument (LI) to create the legal framework that would facilitate the inclusion of prisoners in the voters register for the 2012 general elections.
The court, chaired by the Chief Justice, Mrs. Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, in a unanimous decision, upheld an application filed on behalf of remand and convicted prisoners by two legal practitioners, Ahumah Ocansey and Kojo Graham of the Centre for Human Rights and Civil Liberties (CHURCIL).
A civil rights group, Centre for Constitutional Order however believes the EC boss has disobeyed the order and therefore want him punished accordingly.
President of the Centre, Dennis Ofosu-Apea explained that their decision to cite the EC for contempt was borne out of the conviction that everyone’s rights must be respected and that the EC is not prepared to execute the court decision.
But Dr. Afari-Gyan says “the Commission has nothing against prisoners voting if the law so says. We have been working at it. We’ve held meetings with Prisons officials. We’ve collected the inmate population of all the various prisons and so on.”
Explaining the problems facing the EC, he said as the country is moving towards the implementation of a biometric voting system, another LI will have to be promulgated to encapsulate the changes that will come with the registration processes, suggesting it will be a waste of time to create a new LI now and change it in a few months after the biometric voting system parameters have been agreed upon.
Furthermore Dr. Afari-Gyan asked: “Are we setting the polling stations within the prisons? Will all prisons have adequate space for setting up polling stations and so on? If we set them outside the prisons, how do we ensure the safety and so on of anybody concerned?”
He stated that these consequential issues must be addressed in order to make any new legislation meaningful.
Dr. Afari-Gyan said it is probably a good idea to ask for an extension from the court as the processes have delayed but they will explain the difficulties to the court and “we believe that the court will understand and the court will know that we have not gone to sleep over the order; that we’ve been working steadily.”
Story by Derick Romeo Adogla/Myjoyonine.com/Ghana
Dr. Afari Gyan
A civil rights group is citing the Electoral Commission for contempt of court.
The centre for constitutional order wants EC boss, Kwadwo Afari Gyan and his key staff punished for disobeying a Supreme Court order in March last year which gave the Commission twelve months to make regulations to enable the process that would allow prisoners to exercise their right to vote.
The order followed a declaration by the court granting prisoners the right to vote in national elections.
President of the centre, Dennis Ofosu-Apea, told Joy News his checks show a deliberate refusal to obey the orders of the court.
According to him, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, Dr Afari Gyan is not prepared, in fact disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling and will continue to disenfranchise the prisoners.
He has petitioned President Atta Mills over the matter and has asked the court to cause the immediate arrest and imprisonment of key officers of the EC.
Attempts by Joy News to get a reaction from the EC proved futile.
Source: Joy
News/Ghana
UPDATED:
Afari-Gyan explains delay in enfranchising prisoners
Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of the Electoral Commission
Chairman of the Electoral Commission of Ghana, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan has stated that his outfit has encountered a number of bottlenecks in implementing the Supreme Court’s decision to allow prisoners to vote.
Reacting on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show on Tuesday, to reports that the EC has been cited for contempt by a group for the Commission’s failure to execute the decision of the Supreme Court to allow prisoners to vote, Dr Afari-Gyan said the EC has been working steadily to ensure that the decision is put into action as soon as possible.
The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision on 24th March, 2010, gave the nod to all on remand and convicted prisoners in the country to exercise their franchise.
To cement its decision, the Court directed the EC to come out with a Legislative Instrument (LI) to create the legal framework that would facilitate the inclusion of prisoners in the voters register for the 2012 general elections.
The court, chaired by the Chief Justice, Mrs. Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, in a unanimous decision, upheld an application filed on behalf of remand and convicted prisoners by two legal practitioners, Ahumah Ocansey and Kojo Graham of the Centre for Human Rights and Civil Liberties (CHURCIL).
A civil rights group, Centre for Constitutional Order however believes the EC boss has disobeyed the order and therefore want him punished accordingly.
President of the Centre, Dennis Ofosu-Apea explained that their decision to cite the EC for contempt was borne out of the conviction that everyone’s rights must be respected and that the EC is not prepared to execute the court decision.
But Dr. Afari-Gyan says “the Commission has nothing against prisoners voting if the law so says. We have been working at it. We’ve held meetings with Prisons officials. We’ve collected the inmate population of all the various prisons and so on.”
Explaining the problems facing the EC, he said as the country is moving towards the implementation of a biometric voting system, another LI will have to be promulgated to encapsulate the changes that will come with the registration processes, suggesting it will be a waste of time to create a new LI now and change it in a few months after the biometric voting system parameters have been agreed upon.
Furthermore Dr. Afari-Gyan asked: “Are we setting the polling stations within the prisons? Will all prisons have adequate space for setting up polling stations and so on? If we set them outside the prisons, how do we ensure the safety and so on of anybody concerned?”
He stated that these consequential issues must be addressed in order to make any new legislation meaningful.
Dr. Afari-Gyan said it is probably a good idea to ask for an extension from the court as the processes have delayed but they will explain the difficulties to the court and “we believe that the court will understand and the court will know that we have not gone to sleep over the order; that we’ve been working steadily.”
Story by Derick Romeo Adogla/Myjoyonine.com/Ghana
Monday, May 23, 2011
Ryan Giggs named by MP as Twitter row footballer
Ryan Giggs named by MP as Twitter row footballer
Manchester United's Ryan Giggs has been named in Parliament as the footballer at the centre of the Twitter row.
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming's outburst - which was heavily criticised by Speaker John Bercow - was broadcast live on the BBC's Parliament channel.
The member for Birmingham Yardley had earlier described the gagging order as "a joke".
Hemming's intervention came minutes after the High Court refused to lift the ban on naming the player. Mr Justice Eady rejected an application by News Corporation, owners of The Sun, to dicharge the privacy injunction on the grounds that it was "futile" in the light of recent publicity about the player's identity.
That has included hundreds of thousands of Twitter messages, articles in American magazines and a front-page photograph of the instantly-recognisable player in Scotland's Sunday Herald.
Hemming said: "With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter it seems impracticable."
He also named Times journalist Giles Coren, who has been threatened with legal action for naming a player with an injunction via the social network site.
Manchester United's Ryan Giggs has been named in Parliament as the footballer at the centre of the Twitter row.
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming's outburst - which was heavily criticised by Speaker John Bercow - was broadcast live on the BBC's Parliament channel.
The member for Birmingham Yardley had earlier described the gagging order as "a joke".
Hemming's intervention came minutes after the High Court refused to lift the ban on naming the player. Mr Justice Eady rejected an application by News Corporation, owners of The Sun, to dicharge the privacy injunction on the grounds that it was "futile" in the light of recent publicity about the player's identity.
That has included hundreds of thousands of Twitter messages, articles in American magazines and a front-page photograph of the instantly-recognisable player in Scotland's Sunday Herald.
Hemming said: "With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter it seems impracticable."
He also named Times journalist Giles Coren, who has been threatened with legal action for naming a player with an injunction via the social network site.
Ryan Giggs v The Sun and Imogen Thomas
Ryan Giggs v The Sun and Imogen Thomas
Court judgment.
UPDATE: John Hemmings used Parliamentary privilege to name Ryan Giggs and Giles Coren in the House of Commons.
Court judgment.
UPDATE: John Hemmings used Parliamentary privilege to name Ryan Giggs and Giles Coren in the House of Commons.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Votes for prisoners are essential for human rights
Votes for prisoners are essential for human rights
The UK must not usurp the authority of the European Court of Human Rights
Author: John Hirst, New Europe 22 May 2011 - Issue : 936
One of the arguments advanced by the UK in Hirst UK (No2) was that convicted prisoners by committing their crimes and receiving custodial sentences had lost the moral authority to vote. When the expenses scandal broke in the UK the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey opined that Parliament had lost the moral authority to govern.
Recently the 1922 Committee summoned David Cameron to a meeting and gave him instructions to curb the power of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), and curb the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Then last Tuesday were Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons: “The session started with a poser. Tory Philip Hollobone raised the inquiry of votes for prisoners, against which the house has already voted by a margin of 10 to one. “Will the administration bend the knee to the European Court, or will they stand up and insist that on this issue Britain will not budge?” Hmm. The Prime Minister said that Ken Clarke was “leading the charge” to constitute the court pay more attention to national parliaments. And he would “consider our response to this issue” in the hopes of bringing it “as close as imaginable to the will of the House of Commons””.
The ECHR has been undergoing reform for 10 years now, and the Interlaken Conference highlighted the growing number of cases back logged in the Court process and many of these from Member States which have failed to implement the Court’s judgments. Because the UK has so far ignored fully complying with Hirst v UK (No2) the UK has added 3,500 more cases from convicted prisoners denied their human right to vote! At the Interlaken Conference the UK reaffirmed its commitment to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights, and abide by the Court’s judgments. The UK cannot be allowed to get away with saying one thing and doing another.
According to Strasbourg compliance with the ECHR and implementing the ECHR decisions rests primarily with Member States. However, the UK is adopting the stance that Strasbourg cannot enforce its decisions and that it is unlikely that the UK will face any sanctions. This is clear evidence of a lack of responsibility on the part of the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary. It discloses a structural failure relating to the separation of powers. The fusion of powers removes the necessary checks and balances against abuse of power. Supremacy of Parliament is contrary to the subsidiarity principle and sovereignty of the people. Within a country claiming to be a developed democracy and the mother of Parliaments, there is a systemic failure in ensuring human rights and providing an effective remedy for their breach by a national authority.
Strasbourg and Brussels along with the UN must step in and steer the UK away from becoming a rogue or pariah state.
The media needs to be informed that the UK is a failing state in relation to its obligations and responsibilities. This strong message must be reinforced with threats of referring Hirst v UK (No2) back to the Court for a ruling upon infringement, and the sanctions of suspension or expulsion from the Council of Europe and EU. The UK must not be allowed to use its chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers to usurp the authority of the Court. It is not as the UK tries to make out the Court challenging the UK’s sovereignty, rather it is the UK challenging the Court’s and Council of Europe’s authority. They must rise up to meet the challenge or human rights, democracy and the rule of law are lost.
John Hirst is a former prisoner who campaigns on prison and legal matters. He recently took the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights and won a key ruling on voting rights for offenders. He has a widely read weblog at jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com.
The UK must not usurp the authority of the European Court of Human Rights
Author: John Hirst, New Europe 22 May 2011 - Issue : 936
One of the arguments advanced by the UK in Hirst UK (No2) was that convicted prisoners by committing their crimes and receiving custodial sentences had lost the moral authority to vote. When the expenses scandal broke in the UK the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey opined that Parliament had lost the moral authority to govern.
Recently the 1922 Committee summoned David Cameron to a meeting and gave him instructions to curb the power of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), and curb the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Then last Tuesday were Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons: “The session started with a poser. Tory Philip Hollobone raised the inquiry of votes for prisoners, against which the house has already voted by a margin of 10 to one. “Will the administration bend the knee to the European Court, or will they stand up and insist that on this issue Britain will not budge?” Hmm. The Prime Minister said that Ken Clarke was “leading the charge” to constitute the court pay more attention to national parliaments. And he would “consider our response to this issue” in the hopes of bringing it “as close as imaginable to the will of the House of Commons””.
The ECHR has been undergoing reform for 10 years now, and the Interlaken Conference highlighted the growing number of cases back logged in the Court process and many of these from Member States which have failed to implement the Court’s judgments. Because the UK has so far ignored fully complying with Hirst v UK (No2) the UK has added 3,500 more cases from convicted prisoners denied their human right to vote! At the Interlaken Conference the UK reaffirmed its commitment to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights, and abide by the Court’s judgments. The UK cannot be allowed to get away with saying one thing and doing another.
According to Strasbourg compliance with the ECHR and implementing the ECHR decisions rests primarily with Member States. However, the UK is adopting the stance that Strasbourg cannot enforce its decisions and that it is unlikely that the UK will face any sanctions. This is clear evidence of a lack of responsibility on the part of the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary. It discloses a structural failure relating to the separation of powers. The fusion of powers removes the necessary checks and balances against abuse of power. Supremacy of Parliament is contrary to the subsidiarity principle and sovereignty of the people. Within a country claiming to be a developed democracy and the mother of Parliaments, there is a systemic failure in ensuring human rights and providing an effective remedy for their breach by a national authority.
Strasbourg and Brussels along with the UN must step in and steer the UK away from becoming a rogue or pariah state.
The media needs to be informed that the UK is a failing state in relation to its obligations and responsibilities. This strong message must be reinforced with threats of referring Hirst v UK (No2) back to the Court for a ruling upon infringement, and the sanctions of suspension or expulsion from the Council of Europe and EU. The UK must not be allowed to use its chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers to usurp the authority of the Court. It is not as the UK tries to make out the Court challenging the UK’s sovereignty, rather it is the UK challenging the Court’s and Council of Europe’s authority. They must rise up to meet the challenge or human rights, democracy and the rule of law are lost.
John Hirst is a former prisoner who campaigns on prison and legal matters. He recently took the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights and won a key ruling on voting rights for offenders. He has a widely read weblog at jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com.
Ryan Giggs named in the Herald
Ryan Giggs named in the Herald
Scottish newspaper identifies injunction footballer
Paper publishes 'censored' picture on front page, and attorney general reportedly looking into separate journalist's tweets
See the story here...
Latest news for 22 May Ryan Giggs named in Scottish press.
Scottish newspaper identifies injunction footballer
Paper publishes 'censored' picture on front page, and attorney general reportedly looking into separate journalist's tweets
See the story here...
Latest news for 22 May Ryan Giggs named in Scottish press.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Secret state, low tricks and South Africa sleeps
Secret state, low tricks and South Africa sleeps
by Bryan Rostron, Saturday, May 21st, 2011
South Africa has been embroiled in nationwide municipal elections for the past month. Although most results should have been published, for the moment we can do without the statistics. More importantly, at the same time, there has been a secret election campaign.
The really significant power struggle that has been waged over the past month has been the covert one within the ruling African National Congress. President Jacob Zuma appears to be losing his grip fast. Some of his closest allies, who forced out former President Thabo Mbeki so brutally, have realised the mistake of latching onto an individual who is now revealed as standing for very little, except perhaps the rapid enrichment of his own family. The result is that powerful factions within the party are hedging their bets, encouraging rampant speculation as to who they may prefer to take over after Zuma has served only one term.
They do so almost openly. The liberation traditions of the ANC dictate that no one is allowed to show any leadership ambitions or put themselves forward for positions of power. They must be “called” and then they will “humbly serve”. The result is that power struggles within the party remain nearly as opaque as the election of popes by cardinals locked up in the Sistine Chapel. This secrecy and faux modesty is a guarantee of back-room deals and squalid horse-trading. It is also an absurd charade for a governing alliance whose members range from ravenous capitalists to the SA Communist Party, and encompassing everything in between, including ultra-conservative traditional chiefs. It is especially hypocritical as there are well-documented cases of cash and other inducements offered in leadership contests; even, more recently, factional party assassinations.
This is one of the most glaring proofs that the ANC is yet to emerge from being a secretive liberation movement to a modern political party.
The most recent example is the leaking of an extremely dubious intelligence report naming several prominent ANC leaders as “plotting” against Zuma. The President had been sitting on this report for months and took it seriously. Yet the report only came to light when the policeman who compiled it, the head of crime intelligence, was charged with involvement in a murder committed back in 1999. Was the “plot” report a desperate attempt to save a guilty man? Or was the crime intelligence boss arrested as part of a wider political conspiracy?
It is still sufficient for a few ANC politicians to meet privately, to discuss a presidential succession plan, for them to be accused of “plotting” – as though they were planning a coup d’état. Chief victim once again is the charismatic Tokyo Sexwale, former Robben Island prisoner, then flamboyant tycoon and now housing minister. Sexwale has committed the ANC “sin” of showing presidential ambitions.
In 2001, President Mbeki tried to scupper the presidential aspirations of his then deputy, Jacob Zuma. Back then, Tokyo Sexwale was also publicly smeared as a conspirator in a baseless “plot” based on ludicrous intelligence reports. The manoeuvre finally backfired on Mbeki. The current plot allegations may similarly hoist the floundering Zuma.
It is clear that South African intelligence agencies are increasingly bound up in factional ANC battles. Referring to this dangerous and abusive spy partisanship, the former ANC minister of intelligence Ronnie Kasrils warned: “The country is asleep.” No one paid any attention.
In other words, just as there was under apartheid, there is a secret state where leadership battles are decided out of the public eye and by dirty tricks. So while the municipal elections will be analysed minutely, that other, more sinister campaign will dictate our immediate future. Or will the country wake up?
by Bryan Rostron, Saturday, May 21st, 2011
South Africa has been embroiled in nationwide municipal elections for the past month. Although most results should have been published, for the moment we can do without the statistics. More importantly, at the same time, there has been a secret election campaign.
The really significant power struggle that has been waged over the past month has been the covert one within the ruling African National Congress. President Jacob Zuma appears to be losing his grip fast. Some of his closest allies, who forced out former President Thabo Mbeki so brutally, have realised the mistake of latching onto an individual who is now revealed as standing for very little, except perhaps the rapid enrichment of his own family. The result is that powerful factions within the party are hedging their bets, encouraging rampant speculation as to who they may prefer to take over after Zuma has served only one term.
They do so almost openly. The liberation traditions of the ANC dictate that no one is allowed to show any leadership ambitions or put themselves forward for positions of power. They must be “called” and then they will “humbly serve”. The result is that power struggles within the party remain nearly as opaque as the election of popes by cardinals locked up in the Sistine Chapel. This secrecy and faux modesty is a guarantee of back-room deals and squalid horse-trading. It is also an absurd charade for a governing alliance whose members range from ravenous capitalists to the SA Communist Party, and encompassing everything in between, including ultra-conservative traditional chiefs. It is especially hypocritical as there are well-documented cases of cash and other inducements offered in leadership contests; even, more recently, factional party assassinations.
This is one of the most glaring proofs that the ANC is yet to emerge from being a secretive liberation movement to a modern political party.
The most recent example is the leaking of an extremely dubious intelligence report naming several prominent ANC leaders as “plotting” against Zuma. The President had been sitting on this report for months and took it seriously. Yet the report only came to light when the policeman who compiled it, the head of crime intelligence, was charged with involvement in a murder committed back in 1999. Was the “plot” report a desperate attempt to save a guilty man? Or was the crime intelligence boss arrested as part of a wider political conspiracy?
It is still sufficient for a few ANC politicians to meet privately, to discuss a presidential succession plan, for them to be accused of “plotting” – as though they were planning a coup d’état. Chief victim once again is the charismatic Tokyo Sexwale, former Robben Island prisoner, then flamboyant tycoon and now housing minister. Sexwale has committed the ANC “sin” of showing presidential ambitions.
In 2001, President Mbeki tried to scupper the presidential aspirations of his then deputy, Jacob Zuma. Back then, Tokyo Sexwale was also publicly smeared as a conspirator in a baseless “plot” based on ludicrous intelligence reports. The manoeuvre finally backfired on Mbeki. The current plot allegations may similarly hoist the floundering Zuma.
It is clear that South African intelligence agencies are increasingly bound up in factional ANC battles. Referring to this dangerous and abusive spy partisanship, the former ANC minister of intelligence Ronnie Kasrils warned: “The country is asleep.” No one paid any attention.
In other words, just as there was under apartheid, there is a secret state where leadership battles are decided out of the public eye and by dirty tricks. So while the municipal elections will be analysed minutely, that other, more sinister campaign will dictate our immediate future. Or will the country wake up?