 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, October 12, 2005 |
 |
|


Protesters call for execution of Bali bombers on anniversary of attacks
Chris Buell on October 12, 2005 4:15 PM ET

[JURIST] Hundreds of demonstrators Wednesday gathered again outside the prison where several men convicted in the 2002 Bali bombings [BBC backgrounder] had been held, calling for the execution of the bombers on the third anniversary of the attacks [Jakarta Post report]. The surging crowd eventually broke down gates at the Kerobokan prison, although order was quickly restored. The three had earlier been transferred [JURIST report; Jakarta Post report] from the facility, although Bali's justice chief said the transfer was unrelated to the protest. Protesters have been gathering at the jail [JURIST report] since last week, urging that the convicted bombers be put to death immediately. In all, Indonesian courts have convicted 35 people in connection with the 2002 attacks, three of whom, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Imam Samudra, and Ali Ghufron, have been sentenced to death. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Former Refco CEO charged with securities fraud
Chris Buell on October 12, 2005 3:08 PM ET

[JURIST] The former CEO of Refco [corporate website], one of the largest commodities brokerage firms in the world, was charged [criminal complaint, PDF] with securities fraud Wednesday for an alleged $430 million debt to the company that he hid from investors. Phillip R. Bennett, who was forced out of his position with the company on Monday, is accused of hiding the debt, which was owed by another firm that he controlled, causing Refco's earnings to be inflated. Refco acknowledged the debt [news release] on Tuesday, a day after it announced [news release] that it would restate its earnings since 2002 in its next quarterly report, which will be delayed. Refco reported that Bennett had repaid the debt with interest. The disclosures by the company, which went public only months ago, raise questions about transactions [NYT report] as far back as 1998. Reuters has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Italian police, medical staff on trial for 2001 G8 brutality
Krista-Ann Staley on October 12, 2005 2:39 PM ET

[JURIST] The trial of 45 Italian police and medical staff accused of unlawful violence against protesters at the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa [official website, BBC backgrounder] opened Wednesday. The charges stem from violent clashes between protestors and police outside the summit, resulting in injuries to more than 100 people and one death [CNN report]. Few of the accused were in court Wednesday, and the hearing was postponed until November when over 600 witnesses from the UK, Germany, France and the US are expected to be called. A related case, in which 28 officers have been charged for roles in a raid on protesters' temporary housing that left over 1,000 injured and three in coma, will open Friday. BBC News has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

New UK anti-terror bill would allow 3-month detention without charge
Bernard Hibbitts on October 12, 2005 1:53 PM ET

[JURIST] The British government introduced a tough new anti-terror bill in the House of Commons Wednesday, bringing forward measures [UK Home Office backgrounder] anticipated since soon after the July 7 London bombings [JURIST news archive] that killed 52 commuters. Among other things, the Terrorism Bill [official text; government explanatory notes] authorizes detention of suspects for 90 days without charge. The permissible detention period was extended to three months from 14 days after police said they needed more time to gather evidence in specific instances. Although the larger bill is expected to pass, the detention provision may run into difficulty; even Lord Carlisle, the lawyer appointed by the government to review new security legislation, says it has inadequate protection for suspects in its present form [Terrorism Bill report], and UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke has admitted that concessions may be necessary. Reuters has more. London-based Amnesty International has issued a scathing press release on the legislation, accusing the British government of "tearing up rights and freedoms that date back to Magna Carta", while Liberty UK observes [press release] that "things have come to a pretty pass when the country that once defined justice for the rest of world seeks to win a race to the bottom in fair trial standards." In conjunction with the introduction of the proposed legislation, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has released a comparative study of anti-terrorism legislation and practice [PDF] in ten Western countries, including the US, Australia and Canada. Liberty has already dismissed the FCO report as "spin", saying it "misleadingly compares pre-charge detention with lengthy pre-trial periods in different legal systems around the globe."


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

California appeals court hears homosexual reproductive rights case
Krista-Ann Staley on October 12, 2005 1:23 PM ET

[JURIST] California's Fourth District Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday to determine whether physicians can refuse to provide fertility treatments to a homosexual women based upon their religious beliefs. In a case expected to eventually be heard by the Supreme Court, Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton contend they refused to artificially inseminate Guadalupe Benitez because she and her partner of 15 years were not married. However, Benitez, represented by Lambda Legal [advocacy website, case backgrounder], alleges the doctors' refusal was based in their religious beliefs about homosexuality, in violation of California's anti-discrimination laws. In 2003, the appeals court overturned a 2001 dismissal [PDF opinion] of the case, ruling that the physicians couldn't claim religious exemption under California's anti-discrimination law. The physicians appealed that decision, and the appellate court has 90 days to rule. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Saddam trial procedures outlined at State Department
Bernard Hibbitts on October 12, 2005 1:21 PM ET

[JURIST] US officials outlined procedures for the upcoming trial of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] in a special background briefing at the State Department Tuesday. The officials, speaking "on background" because the trial is an Iraqi process [State Department press advisory], said Hussein would appear before three judges of the Iraqi Special Tribunal [official website] beginning October 19 on charges relating to the 1982 massacre of 143 people in the mostly-Shiite town Dujail, north of Baghdad. Over the past year-and-a-half the judges trying Hussein have received training in humanitarian law and war crimes law from US, British and Australian advisors, including law professors from Case Western Reserve University [CWRU War Crimes research portal]. At one point they even attended a mock trial session in London, England. Hussein will appear alone before the tribunal, probably behind protective glass. Witnesses in his case will be questioned by the chief judge following Iraqi civil law procedure, which is an adaptation of French and Egyptian law. There will be no jury. Hussein has the right to have a lawyer present, to call witnesses, and to appeal against any sentence handed down by the court. Reporters are expected to be able to attend the proceeding; earlier statements by Iraqi officials notwithstanding, no decision has been made on whether the trial will be televised, live or with a delay. AP has more. Case Western law school is hosting a weblog on the trial, featuring expert comentary and primary resources.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UK chief justice, PM clash over terror law interpretations
Bernard Hibbitts on October 12, 2005 11:35 AM ET

[JURIST] In his first media briefing, incoming UK lord chief justice Lord Phillips [official profile] has warned the British government to back off pressuring the judiciary to enforce its own views of the law in terror-related or other cases. Speaking Tuesday at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, he observed, "Occasionally one feels that an individual politician is trying to browbeat the judiciary, and that is wholly inappropriate. We are all trying to do our job to the best of our abilities." The comments follow others made over the summer by senior British judges concerned about threats to judicial independence [JURIST report] after senior government and opposition politicians pressed the judiciary not to obstruct the operation of new terror laws [JURIST report] and to take formal instructions on the interpretation of human rights laws [JURIST report] in the aftermath of the July 7 London bombings [JURIST news archive]. Later Tuesday in his monthly Downing Street news conference [official transcript], Prime Minister Tony Blair denied he was trying to "browbeat" anyone but again put the judiciary on notice that what he has called the "rules of the game" [August press briefing transcript] have changed: I am not trying to browbeat the Judiciary or to substitute the role of government to the proper role of judges. I am simply sitting in the seat that is the decision-making seat for the laws to protect people in this country, and all I am saying to the judiciary is be aware that there is a proper role for the judiciary and there is a proper role for government and for Parliament, and the reason we are trying to put these laws forward and toughen up significantly our response to this terrorist threat is because that threat is real and we have seen how real it is in our country and therefore when you are sitting in my seat and trying to take the right decisions and the Police say look, this is what we need to make this country safe, you have got to have good reasons to say no to that. And I think the Police have set out a strong case, particularly on this three months and what I say to people is, go and look at what they say, take account of it, and then tell me why you think they are wrong. But if they are right, then how can I responsibly refuse to do something that will actually protect - as I say - the most basic civil liberty which is the right to life. The Guardian has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US congressional panel reports no significant China progress on human rights
Wanda Kudrycka on October 12, 2005 9:42 AM ET

[JURIST] A US congressional panel said Tuesday that China [JURIST news archive] had made no significant progress in human rights or law reform over the past year despite announced efforts in those areas. The 2005 Annual Report [full text] of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China [official website] noted ongoing abuses of political and religious rights and freedom of expression, such as harassing and repressing of Muslims and Tibetans, imposing restrictions on religious practices, and increased intimidation and imprisonment of journalists, editors, and writers. The report said Beijing is pressing on with judicial and criminal reforms [JURIST report] that may improve human rights, but criticised government repression and detention of those who challenge state monopolies on religion, speech or assembly. The panel was highly critical of China's criminal judicial system, especially wrongful convictions, using administrative procedures and arbitrary decisions. The annual report was approved in a 18-1 decision, with one Commissioner answering present. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

GOP committee lawyers balk at Miers nomination
Bernard Hibbitts on October 12, 2005 8:25 AM ET

[JURIST] Lawyers for Republican members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday that President Bush's nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers [JURIST news archive] for the Supreme Court was uniformly unpopular among committee staffers, and that some questioning her qualifications and conservative pedigree were actively researching ways to rebut arguments put forward in her favor by the White House. Wednesday's New York Times quoted one GOP lawyer as saying "Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact." Committee staffers vented their frustrations at two meetings on Friday of last week, one a meeting of chief counsels for GOP senators, and another a Republican staff session with Ed Gillespie [Wikipedia profile], a former GOP party chair lobbying for Miers. Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter acknowledged in an interview Tuesday that staffers had strong views on the nominee, but that Senators would make up their own minds, and Specter chief counsel Michael E. O'Neill has urged his colleagues to give Miers a chance to speak for herself, a perspective echoed early Wednesday by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, interviewed [AP report] on ABC's Good Morning America. The Times has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|