Latest news with #JudicialCommittee
BBC News
4 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Jersey tax law does comply with human rights, court rules
A Jersey tax law does comply with human rights, a senior UK court has attorney general, the Jersey Competent Authority and the treasury minister lodged an appeal over a ruling made by the island's Court of Appeal about how authorities might share private tax information with other court had ruled the International Co-operation (Protection from Liability) (Jersey) Law 2018 is incompatible with human rights after Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Limited argued the information should be kept Tuesday, the London-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council overturned the ruling made in 2024. Provisions within the law place limits on the costs and damages that can be awarded against public authorities in Jersey when they have made decisions in good faith to fulfil a request from the authority of another country, the government its ruling, Jersey's Court of Appeal said provisions within the law infringed Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).The government said the ruling was the first declaration of incompatibility made by a Jersey the Judicial Committee said that, as the proceedings were a "tax matter", the main issue was the lawfulness of a notice to produce tax information rather than the confidentiality issues raised by its ruling, the Judicial Committee - which is the final court of appeal for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies - said it did not consider article 6(1) of the ECHR had been engaged.
See - Sada Elbalad
02-05-2025
- Politics
- See - Sada Elbalad
Khaled El Balshy Named Head of Egyptian Journalists Syndicate
Taarek Refaat The Judicial Committee overseeing the Journalists Syndicate elections announced this evening, Friday, that journalist Khaled el-Balshy won the seat of Syndicate head. Basem El-Tayeb, head of the Judicial Committee stated that Al-Balshy received 3,346 votes, representing 55 percent, while journalist Abdel Mohsen Salama received 2,562 votes. He noted that a total of 6,051 journalists participated in the elections, out of a total of 10,132. read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid News Egypt confirms denial of airspace access to US B-52 bombers News Ayat Khaddoura's Final Video Captures Bombardment of Beit Lahia Lifestyle Pistachio and Raspberry Cheesecake Domes Recipe News Australia Fines Telegram $600,000 Over Terrorism, Child Abuse Content Arts & Culture Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban's $4.7M LA Home Burglarized Videos & Features Bouchra Dahlab Crowned Miss Arab World 2025 .. Reem Ganzoury Wins Miss Arab Africa Title (VIDEO) Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Sports Neymar Announced for Brazil's Preliminary List for 2026 FIFA World Cup Qualifiers News Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouly Inaugurates Two Indian Companies Arts & Culture New Archaeological Discovery from 26th Dynasty Uncovered in Karnak Temple
Egypt Today
23-03-2025
- Health
- Egypt Today
Death toll of Palestinians from Israeli genocidal war rises to over 50K: Health Ministry in Gaza
Homes destroyed in Gaza by Israeli airstrikes CAIRO - 23 March 2025: Death toll of Palestinians from the Israeli aggression on Gaza rises to more than 50,000 people since October 7, 2023, according to the daily report of the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza. A total of 41 martyrs (including two recovered martyrs) and 61 injuries arrived at Gaza Strip hospitals over the past 24 hours, the report said, noting that a number of victims remain under the rubble and on the roads, unable to be reached by ambulance and civil defense crews. The daily report also mentioned that the death and injury toll of Palestinians since March 18, 2025, when Israel resumed its airstrikes on the strip, has reached 673 martyrs, and 1,233 injuries. Additionally, a total of 233 names of killed people have been added to the cumulative statistics of martyrs, whose data has been completed and approved by the Judicial Committee following up on the report and the missing persons file. The Israeli forces resumed attacks on Gaza on March 18, breaking a ceasefire that had allowed for the release of dozens of captives taken by Hamas during the October 7, 2023 attacks. Extensive airstrikes targeted several parts of the enclave and ground operations were renewed, resulting in over 600 fatalities among Gazans. The US has expressed 'full support for Israel and the Israeli army in the actions they have taken in recent days.' The Israeli army instructed residents of Tal Al-Sultan to walk to the so-called 'humanitarian area' in Al-Mawasi, according to the Palestinian News and Info Agency (WAFA). Additional reporting by Amr Mohamed Kandil
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Protecting the rule of law doesn't mean rule by lawyers
An objective bystander observing this week's row between the Lady Chief Justice, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, can be forgiven for feeling a little like Matthew Arnold on Dover Beach: 'ignorant armies that clash by night'. The deep and public disagreement between the Head of the Judiciary, the head of Government and leading Members of Parliament about whether judges can be criticised for their decisions marks a new low in the relationships between the various arms of our unwritten constitution. How on earth did we get here in the first place? Only a generation or so ago, the worlds of law and politics were, if not entirely compatible, more connected with each other. Lawyer-politicians were a more common feature of public life, and the Lord Chancellor, who was a member of all three branches of the constitution, acted as a lynchpin, resolving tensions, speaking up for the judiciary whenever necessary and embodying our 'checks and balances' constitution. Judicial Review of administrative action was focused on errors in the process, rather than the underlying policy itself. The independence of the judiciary and the legal profession was unquestioned, but the hidden wiring of our system worked well. The world has changed much since then, with the last Labour government playing a central role in tearing apart this careful relationship. The Human Rights Act, which came into force twenty-five years ago, helped to entrench an approach to the European Convention that has increasingly drawn judges into the political arena. Then, Labour introduced its Constitutional Reform Act in 2005, and, in the name of separation of powers, the Judicial Committee left the House of Lords, becoming a Supreme Court. As such, the Lord Chancellor's role was downgraded, and the old principle of comity trampled upon. Instead of understanding, suspicion, remoteness and a degree of ignorance has filled the void. Accompanying all this constitutional change has, in my opinion, been a cultural change. Lawyers like me who decided to go into politics to legislate and to develop policy were seen as oddities, as opposed to those who focused solely on a legal career. Instead of service in Parliament being viewed as part of the development of legal and indeed judicial knowledge, suspicion and contempt of the political process itself crept in. In Parliament, as some lawyers readily took up a campaigning stance, identifying with their clients rather than leaving their politics at the door of the office, chambers or the courtroom. The continuous nature of politics has meant a reduction in time and space to understand or examine judicial decisions, with their nuance and carefully reasoned explanations. Let's get things straight. Firstly, it is never wise for a politician to wade into a debate about a particular court judgement without reading and understanding it first. As is so often the case, media reports about cases get key things wrong. Having read the immigration appeal tribunal judgement in question, I share and agree with the Lady Chief Justice's concerns. Judges cannot answer back unlike other figures in public life, and when inaccurate or highly personal attacks are made against them, they should be defended by both the LCJ and the Lord Chancellor. Secondly, it is the case that judges are public figures, who make decisions every day in public courts. The principle of Open Justice means that we are entitled to know who is making these decisions and why. It also follows that discussion and indeed criticism of their judgements is not only legitimate but essential. Judges cannot expect to be immune from any comment about their work and politicians should be able to do this, as I and others have done on previous occasions. But there is something else going on here. As our public discourse continues to coarsen, mainly thanks to social media, judges are not immune. There is a wellspring of justifiable judicial concern and anxiety about the threats and abuse that increasingly are being hurled at judges. As Head of the Judiciary, the Lady Chief Justice has an obligation to act to defend her colleagues. This isn't just about the safety of our judges but is also about their independence. But we must be clear that the rule of law does not mean rule of lawyers. The supremacy of Parliament means that it has the power to change the effect of judicial decisions through legislation, with judicial oversight on the reverse side of the coin serving as a central political principle. I very much hope that the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor quickly find a way forward that reverses the 'continental drift' of law and politics further away from each other. Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC is a former Lord Chancellor, Solicitor General and Conservative MP. He is a barrister and former part-time Crown Court Judge Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Protecting the rule of law doesn't mean rule by lawyers
An objective bystander observing this week's row between the Lady Chief Justice, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, can be forgiven for feeling a little like Matthew Arnold on Dover Beach: 'ignorant armies that clash by night'. The deep and public disagreement between the Head of the Judiciary, the head of Government and leading Members of Parliament about whether judges can be criticised for their decisions marks a new low in the relationships between the various arms of our unwritten constitution. How on earth did we get here in the first place? Only a generation or so ago, the worlds of law and politics were, if not entirely compatible, more connected with each other. Lawyer-politicians were a more common feature of public life, and the Lord Chancellor, who was a member of all three branches of the constitution, acted as a lynchpin, resolving tensions, speaking up for the judiciary whenever necessary and embodying our 'checks and balances' constitution. Judicial Review of administrative action was focused on errors in the process, rather than the underlying policy itself. The independence of the judiciary and the legal profession was unquestioned, but the hidden wiring of our system worked well. The world has changed much since then, with the last Labour government playing a central role in tearing apart this careful relationship. The Human Rights Act, which came into force twenty-five years ago, helped to entrench an approach to the European Convention that has increasingly drawn judges into the political arena. Then, Labour introduced its Constitutional Reform Act in 2005, and, in the name of separation of powers, the Judicial Committee left the House of Lords, becoming a Supreme Court. As such, the Lord Chancellor's role was downgraded, and the old principle of comity trampled upon. Instead of understanding, suspicion, remoteness and a degree of ignorance has filled the void. Accompanying all this constitutional change has, in my opinion, been a cultural change. Lawyers like me who decided to go into politics to legislate and to develop policy were seen as oddities, as opposed to those who focused solely on a legal career. Instead of service in Parliament being viewed as part of the development of legal and indeed judicial knowledge, suspicion and contempt of the political process itself crept in. In Parliament, some lawyers took up a campaigning stance, identifying with their clients rather than leaving their politics at the door of the office, chambers or the courtroom. The continuous nature of politics has meant a reduction in time and space to understand or examine judicial decisions, with their nuance and carefully reasoned explanations. Let's get things straight. Firstly, it is never wise for a politician to wade into a debate about a particular court judgement without reading and understanding it first. As is so often the case, media reports about cases get key things wrong. Having read the immigration appeal tribunal judgement in question, I share and agree with the Lady Chief Justice's concerns. Judges cannot answer back unlike other figures in public life, and when inaccurate or highly personal attacks are made against them, they should be defended by both the LCJ and the Lord Chancellor. Secondly, it is the case that judges are public figures, who make decisions every day in public courts. The principle of Open Justice means that we are entitled to know who is making these decisions and why. It also follows that discussion and indeed criticism of their judgements is not only legitimate but essential. Judges cannot expect to be immune from any comment about their work and politicians should be able to do this, as I and others have done on previous occasions. But there is something else going on here. As our public discourse continues to coarsen, mainly thanks to social media, judges are not immune. There is a wellspring of justifiable judicial concern and anxiety about the threats and abuse that increasingly are being hurled at judges. As Head of the Judiciary, the Lady Chief Justice has an obligation to act to defend her colleagues. This isn't just about the safety of our judges but is also about their independence. But we must be clear that the rule of law does not mean rule of lawyers. The supremacy of Parliament means that it has the power to change the effect of judicial decisions through legislation, with judicial oversight on the reverse side of the coin serving as a central political principle. I very much hope that the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor quickly find a way forward that reverses the 'continental drift' of law and politics further away from each other.
