Elephant kills British woman and New Zealander on walking safari in Zambia
The animal was wounded by gunshots as guides tried to stop it charging but both victims died at the scene.
Police said the animal was with its calf and ran at the women in South Luangwa National Park. They were reportedly attacked from behind.
Local authorities named the Briton as Easton Janet Taylor, 68, and the other woman as Alison Jean Taylor, 67.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are supporting the family of a British woman who has died in and are in contact with the local authorities."
Female elephants can respond aggressively if they think there is a threat when they are with their young.
Read more from Sky News:
Two elderly American women also died last year in separate incidents in Zambia.
Both attacks happened while they were on a safari vehicle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Escaped lion attacks woman, 2 children on busy street in Pakistan
An escaped pet lion chased a woman and two children down a busy street in Pakistan's Lahore, police said Friday, with dramatic footage showing the big cat leaping a wall before pouncing on them. CCTV footage released by the police showed the lion jumping the barrier around its home and pursuing a woman on Thursday night. The lion jumped on her back, knocking her to the ground, the footage showed. A police report quoted the father as saying the lion then turned to his 5-year-old and 7-year-old children, and clawed their arms and faces. All three were taken to a hospital but were not in a critical condition. The owners who ran out of the house were "amused to see their lion attack" the passersby, the father added in the report. Police said Friday that they had arrested three men. "The suspects fled from the spot, taking the lion with them. They were arrested within 12 hours of the incident," the office of the Deputy Inspector General Operations in Lahore told AFP. The lion, an 11-month-old male, has been confiscated by police and sent to a wildlife park. Officials at the facility said that the animal appears to be in good health. Keeping exotic animals, especially big cats, as pets has long been seen as a sign of privilege and power in Punjab, the most populous province of the country. In December 2024, an adult lion escaped from its enclosure in another neighborhood of Lahore, terrorizing residents before being shot dead by a security guard. The incident prompted the provincial government to pass new laws regulating the sale, purchase, breeding and ownership of big cats. The law now requires owners to obtain licenses for the animals which are barred from being kept in residential areas. Breeders have to pay a hefty fee for registration, while farms have to be a minimum of 10 acres in size. Big cats are imported and bred across Pakistan, seen as symbols of wealth and power to the elite that own them. Last year, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, which rules the government, banned supporters from bringing lions — the symbol of the party — to political rallies. In late December, Pakistani YouTube star Rajab Butt was gifted a lion cub on his wedding day, and authorities quickly took notice when they saw video of the animal on social media. The next month, Butt managed to avoid jail after promising a judge to upload animal rights videos for a year. The attack in Pakistan comes one month after a lion killed a businessman at a luxury lodge in the remote northwest of Namibia. In April, a lion killed a 14-year-old girl outside Kenya's capital in a ranch to the south of Nairobi National Park. What a new DOJ memo could mean for naturalized U.S. citizens July 4 holiday week expected to set record for travelers Major flooding in central Texas kills multiple people
Washington Post
7 hours ago
- Washington Post
Trump administration preparing to deport detainees to South Sudan
A federal judge in Boston on Friday rejected an 11th-hour plea to spare eight immigrants from imminent deportation to conflict-ridden South Sudan, saying the U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the transfers. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy's brief ruling followed frantic efforts from the migrants' lawyers to block the Trump administration from sending them to a nation that has been on the brink of civil war — and to which none of the men has citizenship. In May, Murphy had halted a U.S. government flight with the men headed to South Sudan, saying the administration could not send them to the African nation without giving them a chance to argue that they could face persecution there. Since then, the men have been marooned in a shipping container on a U.S. Naval base in the East Africa nation of Djibouti awaiting their fate. The Supreme Court last month cleared the way for Trump officials to deport immigrants to third countries where they do not have citizenship, when it temporarily blocked a decision by Murphy that said migrants must have a 'meaningful opportunity' to contest their removal. On Thursday, the court clarified that its order covers the detainees headed to South Sudan. The court's majority did not provide any reasons for their ruling, which is typical for emergency orders. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which has helped represent the men in court, called the legal outcome 'deeply troubling' and said the Trump administration's move to send the men to South Sudan is 'unconstitutionally punitive' Murphy's ruling Friday capped an extraordinary legal saga that has stretched on for weeks and left the men in legal limbo. Though the Supreme Court appeared to settle the matter Thursday, lawyers for the men led a final attempt afterward that spilled over into the Fourth of July holiday to block their transfer to South Sudan by arguing in a federal court in Washington, D.C., that they would face imminent danger. The lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss to declare the deportations 'punitive' and block the deportations, arguing that federal law bars the United States from sending anyone — even criminals — to nations where they could have a reasonable fear that they could be tortured or killed. Moss, who held two hearings on the matter Friday, expressed concerns for the men's safety and transferred the case to Murphy, where it had begun in May. The eight men are not citizens of South Sudan and have no ties to that country, their lawyers said. They said the men come from Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Sudan and Mexico. The Justice Department argued in court Friday that the detainees are among the 'worst of the worst,' most with convictions for violent crimes, including murder. 'We have planes that are imminently going to go,' Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan told Moss during an afternoon hearing. Lawyers for the migrants said it is illegal and immoral for the U.S. government to deport people to places where they could be killed. Most of the men cannot speak the language in South Sudan, their lawyers said, and the Trump administration has publicized the men's names and photos — potentially putting them in greater jeopardy. The men had served criminal sentences in the United States for their crimes and were being deported by the Department of Homeland Security under civil immigration laws. The State Department has urged people not to travel to South Sudan because of the risk of 'crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.' 'The idea of sending human beings into a place where they may be tortured and harmed … cannot be sustained,' said Mary Sameera Van Houten, an attorney representing the detainees. 'That can't possibly be the law in this country.' Mooppan said the South Sudan government has agreed to accept the detainees temporarily, and he added that he does not expect them to be incarcerated. He said they are expected to be granted an immigration status with permission to stay temporarily in the country. 'We certainly haven't asked for them to be detained,' he said. The case centers on one of the most sacred provisions in federal immigration law: the principle that the U.S. government will not deport people to nations where they might face persecution. But the Trump administration has been frustrated in its attempts to ramp up deportations, in part by countries that delay or refuse to accept the return of their citizens deported from the United States. In the case of the eight migrants being sent to South Sudan, Mexico has said it would accept the return of the man from that country. Murphy, the judge in Massachusetts, had ruled in April that the government could not deport immigrants to countries other than their own without giving them a meaningful opportunity to challenge it based on their fears of persecution. But the absence of an explanation left judges and lawyers grasping for direction from the highest court on what lawyers for the immigrants consider a life-and-death issue. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday that the eight men had been convicted of violent offenses — including homicide, attempted murder and sexual assault. At least one has a lesser conviction of robbery and other offenses. 'These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' McLaughlin said in a statement Thursday. She called it a 'win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people.' Jennie Pasquarella, a lawyer for the immigrants, told Moss on Friday that what set the case apart is that the men could face dangerous consequences — even death — if they are sent to South Sudan. Deportation is not supposed to be punitive, the lawyers argued. Moss agreed, temporarily halting the deportations and then transferring the case to the Boston court, saying that was the proper venue. Moss said that based on State Department's warnings, 'it does appear that placing people in South Sudan does pose or could pose significant risks to their physical safety' and that it would 'shock the conscience' to send even criminals to a country where they might be harmed or killed. He said even people convicted of a 'terrible crime' cannot be punished after they have served their sentences. But Moss ruled that the men's lawyers had filed in the wrong court. Moss gave the men's lawyers until 4:30 p.m. — less than 90 minutes from his ruling — to contact the judge in Boston and ask the court to halt the removals. Murphy denied the request a few hours later. Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.
New York Times
8 hours ago
- New York Times
Judge Pauses Transfer of Eight Migrants to South Sudan
The fate of eight men, now held on a U.S. military base in Djibouti, is once again unclear after a district court judge in Washington issued a very brief administrative stay that blocked the government from deporting them to South Sudan. On Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could move forward with its plans to send the men on from Djibouti to the violence-plagued country of South Sudan. The men have all been convicted of serious crimes in the United States. Before coming to the United States, they hailed from Vietnam, Mexico, Laos, Cuba and Myanmar. Just one is from South Sudan. After the Supreme Court ruling, lawyers for the eight men filed a new lawsuit arguing that the deportation plan is 'impermissibly punitive' under a Supreme Court precedent that bars summarily deporting migrants to places where they will experience an 'infamous punishment,' such as hard labor. On Friday, the attorneys asked Judge Randolph D. Moss of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia to issue an order blocking the transfer to South Sudan. After the Supreme Court ruled, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security Department, said these 'sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' and, on Friday, a government lawyer said a plane would take off with the men at 7 p.m. Eastern time. That timeline now seems to be in jeopardy. Judge Moss ruled that the case should be transferred back to the District of Massachusetts, where Judge Brian E. Murphy had been considering an earlier lawsuit brought by the migrants, the one that had led to the Supreme Court ruling. Shortly after 3 p.m., Judge Moss barred the government from deporting the men before 4:30 p.m., which he said was enough time for their lawyers to refile their claim in Massachusetts. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
