Man arrested over Liverpool parade crash to appear in court
United Kingdom correspondent Alice Wilkins spoke to Lisa Owen about how the man arrested over the Liverpool parade crash is due to appear in court, how packets of Haribo lollies are being recalled in the Netherlands after traces of cannabis were found and how a Welsh woman is offering a $1000 reward for the safe return of her pet tortoise.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
27 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Prominent figure with name supression set to reappear in court
Photo: RNZ / Dan Cook A prominent New Zealander is set to reappear in court on Monday. RNZ earlier revealed a prominent New Zealander had been arrested . After being made aware of the man's arrest, RNZ approached the Wellington District Court to see if there were any suppression orders and when he would be appearing in court. In response, a registrar said the man faced eight charges, all of which are category three offences meaning the offence is punishable by imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for two years or more. However, an application had been granted prohibiting media from being able to report the man's name, identifying particulars as well as the nature of the charges he faced before his first appearance. The man appeared in the Wellington District Court via audio visual link on 3 July. Media opposed the suppression orders. However, the defendant's lawyers asked for the orders to continue on an interim basis until their next appearance. Judge David Laurenson agreed to continue the orders. The man was remanded on bail without plea until his next appearance on Monday. Under the Criminal Procedure Act a court may make an order forbidding publication of the name of a person who is charged with an offence if the court is satisfied publication would be likely to result in eight different outcomes including causing extreme hardship and creating a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial. The fact a defendant is well known does not, of itself, mean that publication of his or her name will result in extreme hardship. At first appearance a defendant only needs to advance an "arguable case" that one of the eight grounds applies. The only section in the Criminal Procedure Act that permits suppression of the charges is section 199C, which permits suppression of "trial-related information" where the court is satisfied publication of that information is likely to create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial. Trial-related information includes "any other specific information in relation to any trial". Where an interim order is made under section 199C it only lasts until the defendant's next court appearance. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
Couple take former Pāpāmoa Beach homeowner to court as she refuses to leave
By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter of Terina O'Connell says she had not consented to the mortgagee sale but ASB went ahead with it anyway. Photo: Hannah Bartlett / NZME A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner, after she refused to leave the property. New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on 21 May. Previous owner Terina O'Connell said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home. As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media, asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day. The new owners sought a trespass order on 22 May to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court. According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on 6 June, when O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 - tomorrow". She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made". She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home... tomorrow afternoon... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days". While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media, in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments, while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had. The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years and had not consented to the mortgagee sale, and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed". She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time", and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship, if forced to leave. Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners, and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB". "These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said. The judge said, while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that, while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, 9 June. Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter, when there were 52. This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis". "I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party." OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks were responsible lenders. They typically had dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty, and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort". "There are several options that banks may offer... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments." Beaumont said, in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. "As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments." - This story originally appeared in the Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Nurses in UK threatening strike action over pay
United Kingdom correspondent Lucy Thomson spoke to Lisa Owen about nurses in the UK threatening strike action over pay, as well as airlines calling for an overhaul of air traffic control infrastructure. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
