Belfast court rules part of government’s Legacy Act breaches human rights

Published

8 months ago

February 28, 2024

admin

The High Court in Belfast has ruled that part of the British government’s controversial Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy Act is in breach of European human rights legislation.

The judge, Mr Justice Colton, said he was satisfied that the provisions of the act that offer immunity from Troubles-era prosecutions breached Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judged added that there was “no evidence that granting immunity under the act would in any way contribute to reconciliation in Northern Ireland”, and the “evidence is to the contrary”.

However, the judge also ruled that new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) set up by the act was capable of making effective investigations and was not in breach of human rights law.

Mr Justice Colton told Belfast High Court: “I fully understand the opposition to the new scheme and the reasons for it.

“That said, I cannot at this remove say the system established under the Act cannot provide an article 2 and 3 compliant investigation.

“It has wide powers and wide range of discretion to carry out its reviews. Should it fall short of its obligations on articles 2 and 3, I have no doubt they will be subject to the scrutiny of the court.”

A legal challenge was mounted by a number of victims’ relatives against the act, which aims to end Troubles-related prosecutions and brings in a conditional amnesty for suspects, provided they cooperate with the ICRIR.

Four people had challenged the human rights compliance of the act, including its denial of inquests, lack of adequate investigations and ban on civil proceedings.

Martina Dillon’s 45-year-old husband Seamus was shot dead in loyalist gun attack at the Glengannon Hotel in Dungannon, Co Tyrone in 1997.

John McEvoy survived another loyalist gun attack in Kilcoo, Co Down in 1992, in which another man died.

Lynda McManus’s father James was injured in the notorious Sean Graham bookies massacre, also in 1992. That was carried out by the loyalist UDA group.

Brigid Hughes lost her husband Anthony, an innocent civilian who was killed by the SAS as they shot dead eight IRA members in Loughgall in 1987.

Lawyers expect appeals in the case, which could be brought all the way to the Supreme Court and could take several years to exhaust.

What is the Troubles Legacy Act?

3,500 people died in a bloody period of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland from around 1968 to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, in what was known as The Troubles.

The British government’s Legacy Act, or to give it its full title, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, came into effect in September 2023. It was opposed by all the parties in Northern Ireland, as well as the Irish government. It will end future litigation and inquests into Troubles-era deaths, in what London says is an effort to draw a line under the violence of the past.

Conditional amnesty will instead be offered to those who reveal information about the incidents to a new truth recovery body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).

But many in Northern Ireland say the denial of future prosecutions is a breach of human rights, which the British government refutes.

In December, Ireland announced that it was taking legal action against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights, for only the second time in 50 years. The Irish government said it had received legal advice that the new UK law was in breach of international human rights legislation, and the move was being taken “with regret”.

It has severely strained Anglo-Irish diplomatic relations, which may improve if a Labour government is elected at the next election. Party leader Keir Starmer has vowed to repeal the controversial legislation.

UK

Sara Sharif: 10-year-old’s stepmother said girl’s father beat her up ‘like crazy’, according to WhatsApp messages read in court

Published

18 mins ago

November 1, 2024

admin

Sara Sharif: 10-year-old's stepmother said girl's father beat her up 'like crazy', according to WhatsApp messages read in court

Sara Sharif’s stepmother sent her sister some pictures of the 10-year-old looking bruised and miserable – and told her to “delete” them, a court has heard.

“Look what he’s doing,” Beinash Batool told Qandeela Saboohi, referring to the beatings Sara was allegedly getting from her father, Urfan Sharif.

“Delete the pictures.”

A series of WhatsApp messages exchanged between 2020 and 2023, in which Batool told her sister about the physical attacks Sharif was allegedly inflicting on his daughter, were read out to a jury at the Old Bailey.

Batool repeatedly told her sister that Sharif was hitting Sara for being “naughty”, “rude and rebellious”, and because she had cut up his clothes, hidden keys and torn up documents.

Batool, 30, Urfan Sharif, 42, and Sara’s uncle, 29-year-old Faisal Malik, are accused of carrying out a campaign of abuse culminating in Sara’s murder on 8 August last year.

As early as February 2020, Batool described Sharif as going on a “rampage” after spilling hot tea, saying he was “possessed”.

Writing about 10 photographs of Sara, she wrote: “This is how bad he is beating her… I feel really sorry for her. He beat the crap out of her.”

On another occasion, Batool said Sharif “went ballistic” and “beat Sara up like crazy”. She expressed fears he could break an arm or leg.

In May 2021, Batool told Ms Saboohi: “Not great in our house, it’s all a bit manic. Urfan beat the crap out of Sara and my mind is all in bits. I really want to report him.

“Why the hell doesn’t Urfan learn – she’s covered in bruises, literally beaten black.”

Afterwards, Sharif sat “on his fat bum” and played the board game Ludo, she said.

She went on: “Why the hell I’m even letting him in the house. I’m sorry for Sara, poor girl cannot walk. She literally fainted in the kitchen in the morning. He made her do sit-ups all night.”

Asked what Sara had done, Batool said: “Because she hid the keys.”

By 2022, Batool said she was planning to get some “legal advice” but was advised by her sister to give it time and not to rush.

In an update later that year, Batool said she was thinking about taking Sara out of school, saying: “I don’t want to but kinda don’t have a choice.

“I’m just fed up of her behaviour and Urfan’s. Sara’s body is literally bruised because Urfan beat her up. I cannot even cover it up.

“He beat Sara up yesterday and I can’t send her to school on Monday looking like that.

“She ripped Urfan’s documents in front of him and was being rude and rebellious.”

Referring to an image of Sara in a hijab, Batool wrote: “You haven’t even seen her body, it’s a whole lot worse.”

Days later, she said Sara’s school was worried about her and Sharif was “stressed” about it.

In an apparent reference to Sara’s injuries, she wrote: “Urfan told me to cover it up with makeup and she’s going to wear sunglasses.”

Two months before Sara died, Batool referred to “Sara’s antics”, telling her sister: “Urfan beat the crap out of Sara… Yeah, he beat her up like crazy.

“Her oxygen level dropped really low, she’s finding it hard to stay awake.”

Asked if Sharif had hit her on the head, Batool said: “Nah, but she’s breathing really rapidly.”

The day before Sara died, Ms Saboohi tried to make contact but Batool told her she was “not in the mood to speak”.

Two days later, the defendants were captured on CCTV as they prepared to board a flight to Pakistan from Heathrow Airport.

That CCTV has now been shown to the jury.

On 10 August last year, police found Sara’s body in a bunkbed after Sharif called from Pakistan to say he had beaten her up “too much” for “being naughty”.

William Emlyn Jones KC, the prosecutor, has previously told jurors it was disputed whether messages Batool sent to two of her sisters were accurate or gave a full picture.

All three defendants, formerly of Hammond Road in Woking in Berkshire, have denied murder and causing or allowing the death of a child between 16 December 2022 and 9 August 2023.

The trial continues.

UK

Budget: Hostile market response as chancellor suffers Halloween nightmare

Published

6 hours ago

October 31, 2024

admin

Budget: Hostile market response as chancellor suffers Halloween nightmare

First things first: don’t panic.

What you need to know is this. The budget has not gone down well in financial markets. Indeed, it’s gone down about as badly as any budget in recent years, save for Liz Truss’s mini-budget.

The pound is weaker. Government bond yields (essentially, the interest rate the exchequer pays on its debt) have gone up.

That’s precisely the opposite market reaction to the one chancellors like to see after they commend their fiscal statements to the house.

In hindsight, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.

After all, the new government just committed itself to considerably more borrowing than its predecessors – about £140bn more borrowing in the coming years. And that money has to be borrowed from someone – namely, financial markets.

But those financial markets are now reassessing how keen they are to lend to the UK.

The upshot is that the pound has fallen quite sharply (the biggest two-day fall in trade-weighted sterling in 18 months) and gilt yields – the interest rate paid by the government – have risen quite sharply.

This was all beginning to crystallise shortly after the budget speech, with yields beginning to rise and the pound beginning to weaken, the moment investors and economists got their hands on the budget documentation.

But the falls in the pound and the rises in the bond yields accelerated today.

This is not, to be absolutely clear, the kind of response any chancellor wants to see after a budget – let alone their first budget in office.

Indeed, I can’t remember another budget which saw as hostile a market response as this one in many years – save for one.

That exception is, of course, the Liz Truss/Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget of 2022. And here is where you’ll find the silver lining for Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.

The rises in gilt yields and falls in sterling in recent hours and days are still far shy of what took place in the run up and aftermath of the mini-budget. This does not yet feel like a crisis moment for UK markets.

But nor is it anything like good news for the government. In fact, it’s pretty awful. Because higher borrowing rates for UK debt mean it (well, us) will end up paying considerably more to service our debt in the coming years.

And that debt is about to balloon dramatically because of the plans laid down by the chancellor this week.

And this is where things get particularly sticky for Ms Reeves.

In that budget documentation, the Office for Budget Responsibility said the chancellor could afford to see those gilt yields rise by about 1.3 percentage points, but then when they exceeded this level, the so-called “headroom” she had against her fiscal rules would evaporate.

In other words, she’d break those rules – which, recall, are considerably less strict than the ones she inherited from Jeremy Hunt.

Which raises the question: where are those gilt yields right now? How close are they to the danger zone where the chancellor ends up breaking her rules?

Short answer: worryingly close. Because, right now, the yield on five-year government debt (which is the maturity the OBR focuses on most) is more than halfway towards that danger zone – only 56 basis points away from hitting the point where debt interest costs eat up any leeway the chancellor has to avoid breaking her rules.

Now, we are not in crisis territory yet. Nor can every move in currencies and bonds be attributed to this budget.

Markets are volatile right now. There’s lots going on: a US election next week and a Bank of England decision on interest rates next week.

The chancellor could get lucky. Gilt yields could settle in the coming days. But, right now, the UK, with its high level of public and private debt, with its new government which has just pledged to borrow many billions more in the coming years, is being closely scrutinised by the “bond vigilantes”.

A Halloween nightmare for any chancellor.