'Nama trial': Judge says hearings not to be commented on social media
The exact contents of the alleged social media post and the name of the account concerned were not mentioned in court.Mr Fahy is representing one of three men on trial, Thomas O'Hara.The case centres on a meeting of the Finance Committee at Stormont in September 2015. It is alleged that how evidence was presented was manipulated.The prosecution say that in advance of the hearing, private messages were exchanged between Mr Bryson, the Sinn Féin chair of the committee Daithí McKay and Mr O'Hara, who was a non-elected Sinn Féin member at the time.
Mr Bryson, 35, from Rosepark, Donaghadee, denies a charge of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.Mr O'Hara, 41, from Lisnahunshin Road, Cullybackey, denies the same charge.Mr McKay, 43, from Loughan Road, Dunnamanagh, denies a charge of misconduct in public office.The prosecution say they were involved in an attempt to subvert the rules of the committee, in order to cause "considerable political embarrassment" to a number of people including the then First Minister Peter Robinson.
'Inappropriate'
The Finance Committee hearing was about how Northern Ireland property loans were handled by the National Asset Management Agency, known as Nama.At the start of day six of the trial, Mr Fahy raised the issue of social media posts by an unnamed defendant. He said the reputation of some legal representatives was being impugned.The judge said: "It is entirely inappropriate for a defendant in a trial to be commenting on an account on social media."It is quite wrong and should not happen."If it has been done, it should certainly not continue."The non-jury trial began last week. The Prosecution has now concluded its case.The trial is due to resume on Tuesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Ministers condemn 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain will be forced to pay massive reparations over climate change
Ministers have condemned a 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain could be forced to pay massive reparations for climate change. The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK. The Tories have warned Attorney General Lord Hermer's 'ideological obsession' with international law means the government could follow the edict. But touring broadcast studios this morning, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds insisted the UK should not 'apologise or pay reparations' for leading the industrial revolution. He told Times Radio: 'I think that's completely unreasonable and unworkable from a legal point of view. 'Whilst we should obviously take seriously our legacy, our history, the contribution that UK has made to the world on a number of areas, I think the industrial revolution was not a bad thing. 'The fact that we have a modern industrial society is a good thing. We led on that innovation that then has been transferred around the world. But I don't think it's anything to apologise for or pay reparations for.' Challenged that the UK had obeyed a similar advisory ruling on the status of the Chagos Islands, Mr Reynolds said that 'essential national security functions' had been at stake in that case. 'I think any argument that there should be reparations paid for British history and that should fall on the British people today... I think it's a flawed judgment in my view,' he added. Campaigners have hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.' Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said. And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'. Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued. 'These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation,' he said. It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result. Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities. But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation. However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution. Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers. A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.' Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Female stalker lied about being pregnant and followed her ex to the gym before nearly running him over after they broke up
A woman who lied to her ex about being pregnant followed him to the gym and swerved her car into him after they broke up, a court heard. Sophie Clifford, 31, had been in an on-off relationship with the victim, but when it ended, she ignored his attempts to tell her not to contact him any more. Despite warnings that if she kept contacting him, he would go to the police, she continued sending messages, turned up at his home and left a bracelet with his name on it on his car. On January 27, she 'followed him to the gym' before she 'swerved into him' while he was walking with a friend, narrowly missing them both. In a statement read out in court, the victim wrote: 'I felt physically unsafe. She could cause me physical harm and I never thought she could do such a thing. 'I thought "Will other people be hurt by Sophie because of the quarrel we had?"' She has now been convicted of pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to the stalking and harassment of the victim by sending him numerous messages between December 28, 2024, and January 28, 2025. She appeared in the dock at Swindon Magistrates Court on Wednesday morning after pleading guilty to the offence in June. She appeared in the dock at Swindon Magistrates Court on Wednesday morning after pleading guilty to stalking and harassment of the victim by sending him numerous messages between December 28, 2024, and January 28, 2025 A Crown Prosecution Service representative said: 'Further messages asked him to unblock her and said she missed him. 'When she swerved into him, he was walking with another friend. The vehicle skimmed past and this caused both of them some fear that they would be hit. 'She accepted that she had lied about a pregnancy to get his attention.' The victim added in his statement that he has 'pushed people away' due to worries about what she may do. 'I'm worried about her coming back to my house and running into my dad, who is vulnerable,' he wrote. 'I feel on edge and am worried I'm being watched when talking to female friends, I would catch her looking at us. 'She messaged one of the girls I was seeing to sabotage my image. 'This has changed my personality, I feel miserable and I refuse to meet anyone new so that I can avoid this situation happening again. 'I have no motivation to create any romantic relations.' As part of Clifford's defence, two good character references praised her for being 'kind, caring, and thoughtful, with a gentle nature and desire for peace'. These references also mentioned difficult personal challenges she had faced during the relationship, which had led to issues with her mental wellbeing, and that she was seeking professional help to deal with these issues. Clifford also sent in a statement which read: 'I have not acted this way to anyone else. 'I've addressed my emotional wellbeing, I take full responsibility, and am actively making sure nothing like this happens again.' Harriet Heard, defending, said: 'She does not want any contact with him and has rearranged her life so she is no longer going to the same places. 'When she saw him in Asda, she dropped her basket and ran out of the building. 'It has been exceedingly traumatic for her as well, she does not want anything to do with him. 'There have been concerns over her mental health since the start of the relationship. 'It's the worst relationship of her life, it was toxic. 'She was love-bombed by him in the first instance, she was pinning everything on this relationship. It was not a healthy relationship.' Clifford received a 12-month community order that requires her to carry out up to 15 rehabilitation activity days and pay a £292 fine as well as £85 court costs plus £114 to fund victim services.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Epping hotel anti-migrant protests were organised by members of Neo-Nazi groups
Members of one of the UK's biggest Neo-Nazi groups have been involved in organising anti-migrant protests outside a hotel in Essex, which has led to 10 people being arrested. Two members of the far-right group Homeland can be seen as the administrators of Facebook page Epping Says No, a Facebook page with 1,500 members where the protests outside the Bell Hotel in Epping have been organised. The Homeland Party was formed as a splinter group to the neo-Nazi Patriotic Alternative in April 2023, and has been described as the largest fascist group in the UK by Hope Not Hate. Two members of the party have since called on their social media pages for a 'national call to action', as the government fears another summer of unrest similar to last year when nationwide disorder broke out after three girls were stabbed to death in Southport. Essex Police has issued a dispersal order in Epping which will be in place from 2pm on Thursday until 8am on Friday, and covers an area including the town centre, transport hubs and networks such as the Tube station. The order gives officers the power to direct anyone suspected of committing anti-social behaviour, or planning to do so, to leave the area or face arrest. Dozens of anti-immigration protesters also descended on the Britannia hotel in Canary Wharf on Wednesday, after reports circulated on social media that it had been earmarked to house migrants. It has not yet received any asylum seekers, while it has been reported that the Home Office has reserved more than 400 beds at the four-star hotel. Counter-protesters from Stand Up to Racism have attended both Epping and Canary Wharf, with Essex Police forced to deny claims they had 'bussed' them to the demonstration on Sunday evening. Protests were first sparked outside the Bell Hotel nearly two weeks ago, after 38-year-old Ethiopian asylum seeker Hadush Kebatu was accused of sexually assaulting a schoolgirl within days of arriving in the UK on a small boat. He denies the charges. Chairperson of the Police Federation, Tiff Lynch, wrote in The Telegraph that the disorder was 'not just a troubling one-off', adding: 'It was a signal flare. A reminder of how little it takes for tensions to erupt and how ill-prepared we remain to deal with it.' She said that local commanders across the country are forced to choose between 'keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps'. Ms Lynch said: 'A summer of further unrest is not inevitable. But it becomes far more likely if we once again fail to prepare.'
