Latest news with #CJA
Hindustan Times
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
US court-appointed defence lawyers working without pay amid Trump government funding crisis
Court-appointed private lawyers representing indigent federal criminals are now working without pay as the program that paid them has run out of money, the Federal Courts of the US said. Panel attorneys make $175 an hour in non-capital cases, and a maximum of $223 an hour in capital cases. Image for representation(Pexel) This kicks off a three-month delay in paying the lawyers and their related service providers for constitutionally mandated legal work. This crisis has prompted new fears that these lawyers, known as panel attorneys, could turn down new cases. It would leave defendants, even those facing death, without ample representation. Stakeholders voice concern Judge Amy St. Eve, chair of the Judicial Conference's Budget Committee, said, 'The right of a criminal defendant to effective counsel regardless of the defendant's economic status is guaranteed under our Constitution and the Criminal Justice Act. That fundamental right is at risk because we ran out of funding on July 3 to pay the private practice attorneys appointed to represent federal defendants.' 'These attorneys will not be paid until October 1 for the work they have done and for the work that we continue to ask them to do, unless the Judiciary receives supplemental funding from Congress before then,' she added. St. Eve, in a recent congressional testimony, noted, "These disruptions in panel attorney payments negatively affect our panel attorneys, potentially reducing their willingness to accept future appointments and jeopardising the ability to provide necessary and timely representation.' Meanwhile, Judge Cathy Seibel, chair of the Judicial Conference's Defender Services Committee, observed that some attorneys 'continue to work but are not getting paid, which obviously is a tremendous hardship, especially for small firms and solo practitioners.' Impact on the legal system and defendants While payments to panel attorneys have been suspended during earlier congressional budget crises as well, it has rarely been for more than a few weeks in a fiscal year. Over 90% defendants in federal criminal cases have court-appointed lawyers, as they can't afford their own. Federal defenders' organisations handle about 60% of publicly financed cases across the nation. The other 40% is assigned to private defence lawyers who agree to serve on a court's Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel. During this crisis, the Judiciary has been in contact with congressional appropriators about the need for $116 million in supplemental funding, in order to mitigate payment deferrals and avert the continuing situation. 'The continuing resolution to fund the government for fiscal year 2025 passed by Congress in March froze all Judicial Branch funding at the FY 2024 level, which resulted in panel attorney funding running out unusually early. Because of the hard freeze funding level, funding is not available within other Judiciary accounts to address the funding gap,' the Federal Courts of the US explained. There are over 12,000 private panel attorneys across the USA who accept CJA assignments during the year. Around 85% work for small firms or are solo practitioners, so a delay in payment will hit their purses and impact their work. This funding freeze is also having an impact on specialists employed by the defence to present their clients' cases effectively. These include investigators, expert witnesses, or even interpreters. No money means many of these posts may go vacant for three months. In the District of North Dakota, several long-tenured CJA attorneys have resigned from the panel recently, and many federal courts are worried that trials will have to be postponed, which means defendants may be locked up longer than expected, and in some instances, criminal cases might be compromised if requirements under the Speedy Trial Act aren't met. Given that federal defender organisations are understaffed and overworked, with a hiring freeze for 17 of the last 24 months, as Congress tightens its purse strings, they cannot pick up the slack either. How much are panel attorneys paid? Panel attorneys make $175 an hour in non-capital cases, and a maximum of $223 an hour in capital cases, which is significantly lower than market rates. This amount includes both the attorney's compensation and office overhead, which encompasses rent, supplies, and equipment.
The Star
10-07-2025
- Politics
- The Star
PM to brief MPs on judicial appointments next week, says Seremban MP
SEREMBAN: The Prime Minister will hold a session with MPs next week where he will brief them on the recent judicial appointments, says Anthony Loke. The Seremban MP said the Conference of Rulers is also due to meet next week where the Rulers would also be briefed on the matter. "The PM will have a session with MPs next week and they will have the opportunity to seek any clarification on the matter. "The Cabinet had also discussed this yesterday (July 9) and we are clear that there is a process in the appointment of the Chief Justice," he told reporters after handing over motorcycle licences to students from B40 families. Loke, who is also Transport Minister, said it was not wrong if the position of Chief Justice was not immediately filled. "The Federal Constitution clearly states that when there is a vacancy (in the post of CJ), the Chief Judge of Malaya can be made acting Chief Justice. "Also, the appointment can only be made after the King gives his consent upon being advised by the PM and after consulting the Conference of Rulers," he said. Loke said since the Conference of Rulers was only meeting next week, it was not proper for anyone to supercede this. He was asked to comment on a move by Pandan MP Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli who has urged MPs to support the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to investigate recent allegations over judicial appointments. Rafizi, who said he has sent out letters to the MPs urged them to also support the Parliamentary Special Select Committee for human rights, elections, and institutional reforms to probe into the matter as well as to get Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to provide an explanation on the matter. On July 3, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim had assumed the role of Chief Justice temporarily. The post had been left vacant without any announcement of a successor following the mandatory retirement of Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat the day earlier. In a statement, the Chief Registrar's Office said that Justice Hasnah assumed the powers and duties of the Chief Justice in accordance with Article 131A of the Federal Constitution (FC) as well as the provisions under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(3) of the Courts of Judicature Act (CJA). Article 131A of the FC states that if the office of the Chief Justice is vacant, or if the Chief Justice is unable to perform the functions of the office, the next most senior Federal Court judge shall assume those responsibilities until a new appointment is made, or the Chief Justice resumes duty. Justice Hasnah was elevated to the Federal Court in December 2019. She was appointed as the 14th Chief Judge of Malaya on Nov 12 last year, making her the third woman to hold the position after Tan Sri Siti Norma Yaakob and Tan Sri Zaharah Ibrahim. Earlier Thursday (July 10), Istana Negara, in a statement, reminded all parties that the appointment of superior court judges must be handled with integrity and in strict adherence to the Federal Constitution to prevent any form of politicisation. The Palace emphasised that judicial appointments are a matter of national importance and must be managed carefully, reflecting the principle of checks and balances.
The Star
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Star
Hasnah Mohammed Hashim steps up as acting Chief Justice
KUALA LUMPUR: Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim is now the acting Chief Justice. The post has been left vacant without any announcement of a successor following the retirement of Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat on Wednesday (July 2). In a statement, the Chief Registrar Office said the appointment was made in accordance with Article 131A of the Federal Constitution (FC) as well as the provisions under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(3) of the Courts of Judicature Act (CJA). "The Chief Judge of Malaya shall exercise the powers or perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice until the position is filled. "The Malaysian Judiciary remains steadfast in carrying out its responsibility as the guardian of justice and will continue to serve the people and the nation with utmost dedication,' it said on Thursday (July 3). Article 131A of the FC stated that if the office of the Chief Justice is vacant, or if the Chief Justice is unable to perform the functions of the office, the next most senior Federal Court judge shall assume those responsibilities until a new appointment is made, or the Chief Justice resumes duty. Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(3) of the CJA empower the most senior Federal Court judge to temporarily carry out the duties of the Chief Justice when the position is vacant or the officeholder is unable to perform their functions. Justice Hasnah was elevated to the Federal Court in December 2019. She was appointed as the 14th Chief Judge of Malaya on Nov 12 last year, making her the third woman to hold the position after Tan Sri Siti Norma Yaakob and Tan Sri Zaharah Ibrahim.
New Straits Times
18-06-2025
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Najib gets nod to attend addendum hearing
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has allowed Datuk Seri Najib Razak's application to attend the court hearing of his judicial review challenging the existence of his house arrest order. A three-member bench led by Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim made the ruling after allowing Najib's lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah's application today. Other members of the bench were Federal Court judges Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Datuk Hanipah Farikullah. Federal Counsel Ainna Sherina Saipolamin, who appeared for the Attorney-General's Chambers, did not object to the former prime minister's application. The A-GC filed the appeal after the Court of Appeal granted Najib permission to initiate a legal bid to review the existence of an addendum order and to adduce additional affidavits in support of his application. On April 28, the same court unanimously granted the A-GC's leave (permission) application to present its arguments to overturn the Court of Appeal's ruling. The top court said the proposed questions raised by Attorney-General (A-G) Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar had passed the threshold requirements for leave to be granted under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act (CJA) 1964. "The questions posed are novel and raise issues of public importance, which should be further ventilated before this court. "The questions are of public importance and can provide guidance to the courts on the correct approach to adopt when dealing with the admission of or the addition of evidence. "The questions also pertain to the role of the A-G in judicial review proceedings, particularly whether the A-G is duty-bound under the law to confirm the existence of and supply copies of the impugned documents. "The applicant also seeks to argue whether the A-G has an obligation to defend or verify the evidence at the leave stage of judicial review proceedings, in light of the provisions of Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012," said the court. The hearing is scheduled to begin on July 1. On Jan 6, a three-bench Court of Appeal panel led by Datuk Azizah Nawawi, in a split decision, also allowed Najib to adduce additional affidavits to support his application. Other members of the bench were Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli and Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril. Firuz, when reading the majority decision, said the evidence concerned was not available when they (the appellant) initially filed the leave to initiate a judicial review before the High Court last year. Meanwhile, Azizah, in her minority decision, said there was no appealable error made by the lower court in ruling that the evidence presented in the hearing was hearsay. Najib claims that a royal addendum allows him to serve the remainder of his jail term under house arrest. He is seeking a mandamus order compelling the respondents to confirm and disclose the existence of the alleged additional document dated Jan 29, 2024. Najib is currently serving a six-year prison sentence after being convicted of misappropriating RM42 million from SRC International Sdn Bhd. The High Court had sentenced him to 12 years in prison with a fine of RM210 million, and the verdict was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. However, his prison sentence was halved to six years and his fine was reduced to RM50 million following his petition for a royal pardon. Najib later filed an application on an alleged addendum order signed by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, allowing him to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest. Previously, the High Court had dismissed his application.
IOL News
10-06-2025
- IOL News
Legal implications for a 12-year-old driver in a fatal crash? Understanding the consequences
A 14-year-old pedestrian tragically lost his life in Brakpan after being struck by a Mazda allegedly driven by a 12-year-old boy. Image: Supplied As South Africans express shock over the incident where a 12-year-old Gauteng boy allegedly fatally struck a 14-year-old boy while the 12-year-old was driving his parents' car, crime analyst says the law will probe into the circumstances of how the 12-year-old ended up with the vehicle. In an interview with IOL, crime researcher Thabang Bogopa said after the horrific incident, the child is carefully assessed and recommendations are made to the presiding officer. 'Once a minor is involved in the commission of an offence, the statute that will come into play is called the Children in Conflict with the Law Act (Child Justice Act). What will normally happen is that an inquiry will be held involving social workers who will interview the child, potential witnesses and make recommendation to the magistrate as to whether the child should be prosecuted, or whether the child should be given a hearing in camera which means in private, and be referred for a programme, normally at the child welfare," he said. "Children in conflict with the law are young individuals aged 12 to 17 who are suspected of committing crimes. The Child Justice Act (CJA) in South Africa provides a separate system for dealing with these children, focusing on their best interests and rights, and aims to prevent them from obtaining criminal records in appropriate cases." Bogopa said the CJA emphasizes restorative justice, diversions, and alternative sentencing options to help children turn their lives around. He said in instances where other people are affected by the minor's crime, mediation will also be recommended. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Crime researcher Thabang Bogopa spoke to IOL Image: Supplied Bogopa however, said the law will carefully probe into circumstances on how the 12-year-old ended up with the vehicle, and there would be repercussions for anyone who gave the minor a vehicle. Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. 'The person who gave the child the vehicle would be charged in terms of the National Road Traffic Act, there is a scheduled offence there which involves giving someone who does not have a driver's licence a vehicle to operate. So they would be charged under that Act," he said. "In this case, they would be charged for giving a child who is underage a vehicle, but also someone who does not have a valid driver's licence." The criminologist said it is imperative for parents to conscientise their children strongly against driving without a licence, which is a serious offence. "The advice would be for parents to desist from allowing their children to drive, especially if they are below 16, because if they are above 16, they can have a learner's licence and drive under the supervision of an adult. When they are 18 then they get a driver's licences to operate a motor vehicle on a public road," said Bogopa. He said the massive infrastructural damages caused by the vehicle may become the subject of a civil dispute. "Normally, a full comprehensive vehicle insurance cover would cover up to R5 million of the third party. So, it means the parents' insurance will pay off the damage. It will be between the parents and their insurance as to how they fix it going forward," he said. IOL reported on Monday that the 12-year-old boy appeared before the Brakpan Magistrate's Court in Gauteng after he allegedly fatally struck a 14-year-old boy while driving his parents' car. The boy appeared in court on Monday in the presence of his guardian. He is facing a charge of culpable homicide and driving a motor vehicle without a licence. National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson, Lumka Mahanjana, said on Saturday, June 7, 2025, the 12-year-old was allegedly driving his parents' car at the corner of Madeley and Northdeene Street when he drove over a 14-year-old boy and subsequently bumped into a wall. "The 14-year-old boy sustained injuries and was declared dead on the scene. The 12-year-old was then taken to the Brakpan charge office and later released into the care of his parents by police on June 8, 2025," said Mahanjana. Mahanjana added that matter was postponed to August 28, 2025, to determine the 12-year-old boy's criminal capacity. According to City of Ekurhuleni spokesperson Zweli Dlamini, officers from the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department's (EMPD) Accident Bureau responded to the scene, where paramedics had already declared the teenage pedestrian deceased. "At the scene, officers found a Mazda that allegedly bumped the pedestrian driven by a 12-year-old driver," said Dlamini. IOL News
