Latest news with #barrister
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The ICJ's ruling means Australia and other major polluters face a new era of climate reparations
Today, Australia has found itself on the wrong side of history. The International Court of Justice has handed down a landmark ruling in the most significant climate decision ever issued by a court. As a barrister representing Solomon Islands in the case, I was in the courtroom to hear the judges reshape the global fight for climate justice. The world's top court resoundingly rejected conservative arguments made by Australia and other high-emitting countries such as the United States, China and Saudi Arabia seeking to justify continued fossil fuel extraction. Instead, the court made a slew of progressive statements – ones that will have far-reaching implications. Under international law, countries are now bound to rapidly reduce their emissions below 1.5 degrees of warming. Failure to do so could result in developed countries like Australia having to pay monetary compensation to developing countries or being required to rebuild infrastructure and restore ecosystems damaged by climate change. This means we could be entering a new era of climate reparations. This is a watershed moment in the global environmental movement. In a breakthrough for climate campaigners, the court specifically targeted the fossil fuel industry in its ruling and held that countries failing to take action to protect the environment from greenhouse gases – including from fossil fuel production, consumption, exploration licences or subsidies – may commit an 'internationally wrongful act.' With today's decision, that can now be punished under international law. So what implications does this have for Australia? Australia is looking to host COP31 next year and stands on the brink of releasing its updated 2035 emissions reduction target in coming months. As it does so, it may have to change its legislation and policies to rapidly curb the emissions of companies in its jurisdiction. First, the ruling puts pressure on the Albanese government to increase its ambitions for emissions reduction. The court made clear that countries must set goals under the Paris agreement which align with the 1.5C temperature target. Climate Action Tracker has found that for Australia to carry its fair share of the global emissions reduction burden, it should reduce its emissions by 76% by 2035 against a 2005 baseline. This aligns with the upper range of possible targets identified by the Climate Change Authority, which has suggested an emissions target between 65% and 75% by 2035. In light of the ICJ decision, a failure to set a target close to 75% is likely to come under legal or political challenge by other countries and domestic campaigners. Second, to comply with its international obligations, Australia will have to curb its production and use of fossil fuels. Despite its tough talk on climate change, the Albanese government has continued to approve coal, oil and gas projects at an alarming rate. In recent months the government has approved the extension of Woodside's controversial North West Shelf development, a massive gas project which will operate to 2070 and emit an enormous 87.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year. If Australia secures the hosting rights to COP31 it will come under intense pressure from its neighbours in the Pacific to live up to its rhetoric and rapidly transition away from fossil fuels. Third, and most importantly, today's ruling means that Australia could pay climate reparations in the future. Developing countries may bring claims against Australia seeking damages. As a high-emitting developed country and one of the largest exporters of coal, oil and gas in the world, Australia has both the historical responsibility for climate change and the means to pay other nations for compensation and restitution. While the scale of any reparations will depend on the amount of damage suffered by the country bringing the claim, the breadth of climate change impacts mean that Australia and other countries could be faced with very high-value cases. Money is a strong motivator. The world court's decision today means that the threat of reparations can now be used to compel action from the worst, most stubborn climate offenders – Australia included. That is transformative for climate lawyers, giving us a powerful tool to pressure governments and corporations to acknowledge the realities of our warming planet. But it is a victory for everyone – a clear statement that the status quo isn't sufficient. We must act now to confront the climate crisis. And in a moment when hope feels hard to come by, that's very good news indeed. Harj Narulla is a barrister and leading global expert on climate litigation at Doughty Street Chambers and the University of Oxford. He represented Solomon Islands before the ICJ but is writing in his personal capacity
Irish Times
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
District Court judge resigns with intention to return to practise in higher courts as a barrister
District Court judge Brian O'Shea, who has sat in courts in the southeast of the country, has resigned from the bench. Mr O'Shea told The Irish Times he intended to return to practising as a barrister and will appear before higher courts in the region from next week. He said he had intended to resign in October but 'a couple of opportunities' had arisen for which he could not apply as a sitting judge. The resignation was noted by the President of the District Court, Judge Paul Kelly, who described Mr O'Shea as 'a great colleague who will be a loss to the District Court and to the judiciary generally'. READ MORE Judge Kelly wished him well in his future career. While Mr O'Shea is not prohibited by law from practising at the District Court, it is not allowed under the code of conduct of the Bar Council of Ireland, the professional body for barristers. Mr O'Shea said he wanted to observe the code of conduct and would not therefore practise in the District Court, but would work in the Circuit and High Courts in the southeast from next week. His resignation was conveyed to Judge Kelly and to the President Michael D Higgins, in line with protocol. The resignation of a judge is comparatively rare event. Before Mr O'Shea's resignation, there were 65 District Court judges, seven short of the full complement of 72. In advance of the judge's resignation the Government had already announced plans to name six new judges in coming weeks, with a seventh due to be announced in September to replace one judge who is retiring. Judge O'Shea raised concerns about the state of courthouses in Cork and Tipperary earlier this year and proposed transferring court sittings to two large courthouses due to 'disgustingly unhygienic' toilets and rat infestations at existing courts. In March, Mr O'Shea, who sat in courts in east Cork, south Tipperary and west Waterford, wrote to the Courts Service saying he intended to transfer District Court sittings from Youghal to Dungarvan and from Cashel and Carrick-on-Suir to Clonmel. Mr O'Shea said four of the six courthouses in the courts district – Carrick-on-Suir, Cashel, Youghal and Lismore, whose sittings were transferred to Dungarvan in 2022 – were 'gravely inadequate in terms of their infrastructure'. The Courts Service said it had been 'engaging positively' with the then judge on the potential move. Mr O'Shea said the moves were not the reason for his resignation. Before turning to the law, Mr O'Shea, who is from Kilkenny, served as a garda from 1997 to 2003, and worked as a college lecturer in Carlow Institute of Technology and St Patrick's College in Carlow before being called to the Bar in 2005. He practised criminal, family and civil law as a barrister before he was appointed a District Court judge in 2017.
South China Morning Post
17-07-2025
- South China Morning Post
Charting a course in AI seas: why barristers are still captains of legal ship
The full title of 'barrister at law' apparently traces back to 16th century England, providing pleading and advocacy services. Since then, little has changed. Around that time, in the mid-16th century, something else happened in Europe: the Scientific Revolution. Since then, everything has changed. The name and the services of barristers have not changed, but in the last quarter of a century, digitisation and the internet have brought about evolutionary changes to the way barristers provide their services. More and more legal resources have become digitised and accessible through the internet – gone are the days when barristers had to compile a database or run to one compiled by others; a few clicks in front of a screen (including the clicks required to confirm your purchase) will give you access to any legal database you will ever need. Technologies have hitherto nudged barristers on in the services they provide, by opening up to every barrister oceans of legal databases and voyages their biological brains are capable of charting.
The Standard
07-07-2025
- The Standard
Australian woman found guilty of triple murder with toxic mushrooms
Lead barrister Colin Mandy (C) is surrounded by members of the media as he leaves the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court in Morwell on July 7, 2025. (AFP)
Telegraph
04-07-2025
- Telegraph
‘Police said I violated the Human Rights Act for cycling no-handed'
A cyclist has claimed police ticketed him under the Human Rights Act for taking both hands off of his handlebars. Paul Powlesland, a barrister and environmental campaigner, filmed the encounter with the City of London police in which he was told he could fall and injure someone. In the video posted to X, a police officer can be heard saying: 'Cycling with no hands on the handlebars places other road users at risk, contravenes article 2 of the Human Rights Act '. The barrister, laughing, responds: 'Cycling no-handed violates Article 2 of the Human Rights Act? That's the Right to Life, isn't it?' Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that 'everyone's right to life shall be protected by law' and 'no one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a court following his conviction of a crime'. I recently got stopped & ticketed by the City of London Police for, & I kid you not, "cycling no handed". Even though it's clearly not an offence, the officer said they were ticketing me under the Human Rights Act as I was infringing other people's Article 2 'Right to Life', in… — Paul Powlesland (@paulpowlesland) July 3, 2025 There is no specific law that makes cycling no-handed a crime in the UK, though police do have the power to fine riders deemed to be cycling dangerously and not in control of their bikes. Mr Powlesland is heard probing the officer over whether she intended to ticket everyone cycling no handed during rush hour, to which she responded: 'if I see them, yes.' He added: 'You're letting phone snatchers and bike thieves go to ticket law-abiding citizens cycling no handed – do you honestly think that's a good use of City of London police time?' While Mr Powlesland was not ticketed on 2 April, when the video was shot, he had been penalised by the officer on 5 March for careless and inconsiderate cycling under section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The barrister, who is the founder of Lawyers for Nature, an organisation which seeks to represent natural work in the courts, later described the ticketing as 'utterly bonkers stuff'. In a caption on X after the event, he argued that police time would be better spent tackling the scourge of thieves in London. He wrote: 'With bicycle theft basically legalised in the City due to the complete failure of the police to bother investigating such thefts and people being regularly terrorised in London by e-bike phone muggers, it's good to see the City of London Police concentrating the resources on what really matters.' In the first four months of the year, 213 phones were reported stolen in the City of London. In the West End, 37 people report their phone stolen on average every day. Home Office data released in May revealed that more than 365,000 bike thefts reported to the police have gone unsolved since 2019, which equates to 89 per cent of all cases. And just three per cent of reported bike thefts in the past five years have led to a charge or summons. Mr Powlesland had posted his encounter in response to the City of London Police's announcement of their summer campaign on 2 July, which they have dubbed 'Safer City Streets'. The force said the campaign 'focuses on offences that matter to communities, like cyclists going through red lights'. It added that nearly 300 cyclists had received fixed penalty notices for running red lights so far this year. A City of London Police spokesman told MailOnline: 'We're aware of a social media post that shows a small clip from a longer interaction between a cyclist and a City of London Police officer on April 2 2025. 'The cyclist approached the officer and during their three-minute chat, the Human Rights Act was mentioned. The cyclist was not ticketed on this day, but he had approached the officer because she had issued him a ticket on March 5 2025 in the City of London. 'On March 5 2025, the officer observed the cyclist riding with his arms stretched out wide and off the handlebars during rush hour. 'The officer stopped the cyclist and issued him with a ticket for careless and inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 'A ticket was processed on May 19 2025. Should the cyclist contest the ticket, officers will attend court and present any relevant evidence that we have obtained.'
