Canadians “weren’t impressed” by the decision of the UK government to offer Donald Trump an unprecedented second state visit to the UK, the country’s prime minister has told Sky News.

Sir Keir Starmer handed the invitation to the US president during a visit to the Oval Office.

The newly elected Liberal leader Mark Carney said that the invitation “cut across clear messages” that the Canadian government was trying to send to the White House in response to their threats against Canada’s sovereignty.

“I think, to be frank, they [Canadians] weren’t impressed by that gesture… given the circumstance. It was at a time when we were being quite clear about the issues around sovereignty.”

Explained: Who is Mark Carney?

It comes as the Canadian prime minister has invited the King, who is Canada’s head of state, to open its parliament later this month in a “clear message of sovereignty”.

It is the first time the sovereign has carried out this function in nearly 50 years and Mr Carney says it’s “not coincidental”.

“All issues around Canada’s sovereignty have been accentuated by the president. So no, it’s not coincidental, but it is also a reaffirming moment for Canadians.”

The former Bank of England governor was re-elected after a campaign fought on the promise of standing up to American threats to Canadian statehood. He had refused to speak to Mr Trump until Canadian sovereignty was respected.

It followed Mr Trump threatening to make Canada the 51st state of the US.

Mr Carney justified making his first foreign trip as prime minister to the White House by stating Mr Trump had changed his intentions to annex Canada from an “expectation to a desire”.

“He was expressing a desire. He’d shifted from the expectation to a desire. He was also coming from a place where he recognised that that wasn’t going to happen.

“Does he still muse about it? Perhaps. Is it ever going to happen? No. Never.”

The high-stakes meeting in the Oval Office was not confrontational, with Mr Carney praising the president’s approach as “very on top of the essence of a wide range of issues” and “able to identify the points of maximum leverage, both in a specific situation but also in a geopolitical situation”.

A King’s tension between allies

Samantha Washington

Fractured geopolitical relations have produced an interesting phenomenon: two Commonwealth nations both deploying their head of state, King Charles, to manage the vagaries of Donald Trump.

For Canada, and its new prime minister, Mark Carney, the King is being unveiled at the opening of Parliament in Ottawa later this month as an unequivocal spectacle and symbol of sovereignty.

For the UK, Sir Keir Starmer is positioning the monarch as a bridge and has proffered a personal invitation from King Charles to the president for an unprecedented second state visit in order to facilitate negotiations over trade and tariffs.

This instrumentalisation of the crown, which ordinarily transcends politics, has created tension between the historically close allies.

Canadians view the UK’s red carpet treatment of a leader who is openly threatening their sovereignty as a violation of Commonwealth solidarity, while the British seem to have no compunction in engaging in high-level realpolitik.

The episode is emblematic of how pervasive disruptive American influence is and how extreme measures taken to combat it can aggravate even the most enduring alliances.

Since the meeting, tensions between the two countries have abated.

Further negotiations on trade and security are expected soon.

Given the deep economic integration of the two nations, neither side expects a deal imminently, but both sides concur that constructive talks have led to progress on an agreement.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

With greater goodwill between the two North American neighbours, Mr Carney also expressed optimism about Mr Trump’s efforts to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia.

The prime minister confirmed his view that the president was an “honest broker” and that his counterpart had been “helpful” in bringing momentum to a 30-day ceasefire between the warring nations.

Despite a reset in relations between the United States and Canada, Mr Carney remained circumspect.

His motto is: “Always plan for the worst.”

Read more from Sky News:
Trump signs deals in Saudi Arabia – with murder long forgotten
Menendez brothers’ murder sentences reduced

And to that end, nothing is being taken for granted: “We do plan for having no deal, we do plan for trouble in the security relationship. We do plan for the global trading system not being reassembled: that’s the way to approach this president.”

A judge has reduced the Menendez brothers’ murder sentences – meaning they are eligible for parole.

Lyle, 57, and Erik, 54, received life sentences without the possibility of parole after being convicted of murdering their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, at their Beverly Hills home in 1989.

Last year, the then Los Angeles district attorney George Gascon asked a judge to change the brothers’ sentence from life without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life.

On Tuesday, Los Angeles County superior court Judge Michael Jesic did so, paving the way for the brothers’ parole and possible release.

The ruling capped off a day-long hearing in which several relatives, a retired judge and a former fellow inmate testified in support of efforts to shorten the brothers’ sentences.

‘I killed my mum and dad’

The brothers appeared at the proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court via video feed from prison in San Diego.

“I killed my mum and dad. I make no excuses and also no justification,” Lyle said in a statement to the court. “The impact of my violent actions on my family… is unfathomable.”

Erik also spoke about taking responsibility for his actions and apologising to his family.

He said: “You did not deserve what I did to you, but you inspire me to do better.”

The brothers did not show any apparent emotion during much of the testimony but chuckled when one of their cousins, Diane Hernandez, told the court that Erik received A+ grades in all of his classes during his most recent semester in college.

Anamaria Baralt, another cousin of the brothers, told the court they had repeatedly expressed remorse for their actions.

“We all, on both sides of the family, believe that 35 years is enough. They are universally forgiven by our family,” she said.

‘They have not come clean’

Los Angeles County prosecutors argued against the resentencing, saying the brothers have not taken complete responsibility for the crime.

The current district attorney Nathan Hochman said he believes the brothers were not ready for resentencing because “they have not come clean” about their crimes.

His office has also said it does not believe they were sexually abused.

“Our position is not ‘no’. It’s not ‘never’. It’s ‘not yet’,” Mr Hochman said. “They have not fully accepted responsibility for all their criminal conduct.”

Path to freedom?

“I’m not saying they should be released, it’s not for me to decide,” Judge Jesic said. “I do believe they’ve done enough in the past 35 years, that they should get that chance.”

After the judge’s decision, the brothers now have a new path to freedom after decades in prison.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

They are now eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law because they committed the crime while under the age of 26.

The state parole board must still decide whether to release them from prison.

While this decision is made, the brothers will remain behind bars.

During the original trial, prosecutors accused the brothers of killing their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance, although their defence team argued they acted out of self-defence after years of sexual abuse by their father.

Read more from Sky News:
Man who spent 38 years in jail has conviction quashed
Trump to lift sanctions on Syria
Tory MP charged with sexual assaults

The brothers have maintained since they were first charged with the murders that their parents abused them.

A Netflix series and subsequent documentary about the brothers thrust them back into the spotlight last year.

The outcome of the Sean “Diddy” Combs sex trafficking trial is in the hands of the 12 individuals who have been selected as jurors. 

On Monday, the group of jurors – made up of eight men and four women – listened to opening statements from the prosecution and defence as the trial got underway in Manhattan, New York.

The 55-year-old hip-hop mogul has strenuously denied the allegations against him and pleaded not guilty to five charges.

They are: One count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.

Members of the jury range in age from 30 to 74, coming from different neighbourhoods across New York, and from a wide range of professions.

Here is everything we know about the group tasked with deciding the outcome of the high-profile case.

How were jurors selected?

The 12 individuals were whittled down from a pool of 45 prospective jurors last week.

During the selection process, each individual was questioned by Judge Arun Subramanian in a legal process known as “voir dire” – translated from French as “to speak the truth”.

The process aims to find a panel of 12 main jurors and six alternates who can be fair and impartial.

That has been a particularly sensitive issue in this trial, given Combs’ celebrity status as an entrepreneur and rap mogul and the worldwide coverage of the case so far.

Jurors were quizzed about their hobbies and musical tastes, with some of the younger jurors in their 30s and 40s saying they listen to hip-hop and R&B music – genres that are closely associated with Combs.

They were also asked if they had any views on the prosecution or the defence, if they or someone close to them had been a victim of crime, and their beliefs on hiring sex workers, the use of illegal drugs, hip-hop artists and law enforcement.

Judge Subramanian then asked jurors whether they had heard of names included on a list of individuals, including celebrities, who may be mentioned during the trial. The list is long, the court heard, with the judge saying it reminded him of Lord Of The Rings.

As jury selection unfolded, Combs sat in court wearing a white shirt with a black crew-neck sweater, grey trousers and glasses. He appeared to express his approval or disapproval at each individual, either with a nod or by shaking his head no, to his attorneys.

Read more about how jury selection unfolded in court here.

Read more:
Diddy on trial: Everything you need to know
Sean Combs: A timeline of allegations

What to know about those selected

The individuals selected to sit on the jury include an investment analyst, a healthcare worker, a massage therapist and a deli worker, according to Sky News’ US partner network, NBC News.

When called for jury duty, potential jurors are allocated a number, which allows the court to keep track of the individuals and ensures a random selection process.

Here is everything we know about those selected for Combs’s trial:

• Juror no 2: A 69-year-old male from Manhattan who works as an actor and massage therapist. He listens to classical, jazz and rock music, and his hobbies include music, theatre, cycling and hiking.

• Juror no 5: A 31-year-old male from Manhattan who works as an investment analyst. He enjoys playing sports and video games.

• Juror no 25: A 51-year-old male from Manhattan who has a PhD in molecular biology and neuroscience. He listens to classical music and opera, and his hobbies include art, science, cooking and the outdoors.

• Juror no 28: A 30-year-old female from the New York borough of the Bronx, who works in a deli. She listens to hip-hop and reggaeton and enjoys reading and playing video games.

• Juror no 55: A 42-year-old female from Manhattan who is an aide in a nursing home. She likes to cook and paint, and watch Harry Potter and Disney films.

• Juror no 58: A 41-year-old male from the Bronx who works in communications at a US prison. He listens to reggaeton and ’90s hip-hop, and his hobbies include sports and fantasy football.

• Juror no 75: A 68-year-old male from Westchester County, just north of New York City, who is a retired bank worker. He listens to Indian music and plays cricket and volleyball.

• Juror no 116: A 68-year-old male from Westchester County who is retired and used to work at a telecommunications company. He listens to rock music, and likes to bowl and play golf.

• Juror no 160: A 43-year-old female from Westchester County who works as a healthcare worker. She listens to R&B and hip-hop, and likes dancing.

• Juror no 184: A 39-year-old male from the Bronx who is a social worker. He listens to R&B and popular music from West Africa, and enjoys watching sports.

• Juror no 201: A 67-year-old male from Westchester County who works as a logistics analyst. His hobbies include woodworking and cycling.

• Juror no 217: A 74-year-old female from Manhattan who works as a treatment coordinator. She listens to classical music and likes to travel.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

The six alternate jurors chosen include four men and two women, ranging in age from 24 to 71. Those individuals will hear the entire case but will only participate in the decision-making if one of the 12 main jurors cannot continue.

The trial is expected to last around eight weeks.