Latest news with #judicialreview
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Families of Chinook crash victims press on with legal action against MoD
The families of those killed in the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash have said they will press on with seeking a judicial review after the Ministry of Defence (MoD) dismissed their demands for a judge-led public inquiry. RAF Chinook ZD576 was carrying 25 British intelligence personnel from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort George near Inverness when it crashed in foggy weather on June 2 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre. All 25 passengers – made up of personnel from MI5, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army – were killed, along with the helicopter's four crew members. The families launched legal action in a 'letter before action' to the UK Government sent earlier this month on the 31st anniversary of the crash. They said they will now pursue a judicial review after the MoD responded and rejected their demands for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the crash, and for access to files which have been sealed for 100 years. Nicola Rawcliffe, whose brother Major Christopher Dockerty was killed in the crash aged 33, said: 'I am furious and disgusted with the MoD's decision to summarily dismiss our claim. 'The MoD is continuing to deceive our families and disrespect our loved ones' memories by claiming that the many previous inquiries investigated all the facts, but we now know the aircraft was not airworthy. They didn't know half of what we know now. 'The Government may have sealed the files for 100 years, but we, the families of those who died, are firmly united, strong and defiant, and we will get to the truth, no matter what it takes.' Following the crash, the Chinook's pilots, Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were accused of gross negligence, but this verdict was overturned by the UK government 17 years later following a campaign by the families. A subsequent review by Lord Philip set out 'numerous concerns' raised by those who worked on the Chinooks, with the MoD's testing centre at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire declaring the Chinook Mk2 helicopters 'unairworthy' prior to the crash. The MoD said the crash was a 'tragic accident' and while its sympathies remain with the families and friends of the victims, there have been several investigations and inquiries and it believes it is unlikely another would reach any new conclusions. Andy Tobias, who was eight when his father Lieutenant Colonel John Tobias, 41, was killed, said: 'My childhood was stolen from me because someone decided my dad and his colleagues should be put on a helicopter that was not fit for purpose. 'My mum, my brother, I and all the families deserve the truth and the MoD must repay the honour and integrity that those on board had shown in their years of service to their country. That's why we formed the Chinook Justice Campaign and we will not rest until we get the truth. If that takes a judge to rule in court, then so be it.' The families, who have coalesced into the Chinook Justice Campaign, said failing to order a public inquiry is a breach of the UK Government's human rights obligations. Solicitor Mark Stephens, from law firm Howard Kennedy, said: 'This decision by the MoD to dismiss our claim is an unforgivable betrayal of service people who gave their lives for their country and an undisguised slap in the face for their long-suffering and bereaved families. 'So much for the Government's so-called commitment to duty of candour. 'We will now seek a judicial review into the Ministry of Defence's decision to deny the families truth, transparency and justice.' An MoD spokesperson said: 'The Mull of Kintyre crash was a tragic accident, and our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who died. 'We understand that the lack of certainty about the cause of the crash has added to the distress of the families. 'We provided a detailed and considered response to the pre-action protocol letter stating the reasons why we cannot accept the demand for establishing a new public inquiry. 'It's unlikely that a public inquiry would identify any new evidence or reach new conclusions on the basis of existing evidence. 'The accident has already been the subject of six inquiries and investigations, including an independent judge-led review.' It is understood the sealed documents contain personal information relating to third party individuals and the early release of this information would breach those individuals' data protection rights.
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Raub durian farmers seek to drop appeal over eviction case
The farmers' applied to initiate judicial review proceedings against the state government last year against its decision to lease 2,167ha of farm land to Royal Pahang Durian Resources. (Facebook pic) PETALING JAYA : A group of durian farmers in Raub are seeking to drop their appeal against a High Court ruling that dismissed their application for a judicial review of an eviction notice served on them by the Pahang government in 2020. The legal firm representing the farmers said in a letter yesterday they had been instructed to withdraw the appeal, with no order as to costs. The defendants, comprising the Pahang government, Royal Pahang Durian Resources PKPP Sdn Bhd, and several others, were given seven days to convey any objections. The farmers' application for a judicial review was dismissed by the High Court judge last year. The farmers had filed the application after the state government decided to lease the 2,167ha of farm land to Royal Pahang Durian Resources. Justice Radzi Harun also rejected an application to review the state's move to sublease the land with the mandatory requirement that durians farmed be sold to a single entity nominated by Royal Pahang Durian Resources. Royal Pahang Durian Resources executive director Steven Mun confirmed receiving the letter, but said the farmers' application had yet to be filed in court. 'We hope the necessary filings will be made at the Court of Appeal shortly,' he told FMT. He said the resolution of the dispute paves the way for a structured arrangement where farmers are granted a 30-year lease, with an option to renew for another 30 years subject to state approval. He said under the terms offered to the farmers, Royal Pahang Durian Resources will purchase the durians from these farms 'thereby regulating the supply chain and ensuring that exports meet the certifications required by importing countries'. Mun said importing countries were increasingly requiring that durian exports were certified and met the standards of the Malaysian Good Agricultural Practices scheme.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Starmer's Chagos deal faces new legal challenge
Sir Keir Starmer's deal to give away the Chagos Islands is facing a fresh legal challenge. Campaigners have launched a High Court judicial review, which aims to stop the Government from signing away the archipelago to Mauritius without consulting the Chagossian people. The case is expected to be heard next month and is being backed by the Great British PAC, which was also behind an injunction from the High Court last month. The Conservatives backed the judicial review on Wednesday night and said the Chagos deal was a 'damning indictment of Keir Starmer'. The deal, which will cost British taxpayers up to £30 billion, means the Government will have to give notice if it plans to launch an attack from the joint Diego Garcia UK-US military base. The Great British PAC said the High Court case would be led by James Tumbridge, a barrister, and Philip Rule KC. The case is expected to directly challenge David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, for 'excluding Chagossians from a process that directly impacts their land, identity and future'. Misley Mandarin, who is bringing the legal challenge alongside his father Michel Mandarin, is an Army veteran who came to Britain 23 years ago as a British citizen. Michel Mandarin told The Telegraph: 'We are not Mauritian, we are Chagossian. The Government cannot lawfully decide our fate without us.' The claimants will argue that any agreement struck behind closed doors, without input from the Chagossians, is not only unjust but unlawful. The case is set to cite failures under the Equality Act and a duty to consult under common law as well as international legislation, including protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'British Chagossians have been neglected and betrayed by the Labour Government as part of their £30bn Chagos surrender treaty. 'In their desperation to follow the whims of their Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, Keir Starmer and David Lammy have ignored the British national interest, betrayed British Chagossians and left British taxpayers picking up a £30bn bill. 'It's also a damning indictment of Keir Starmer – a man who boasts of his time as a human rights lawyer – that serious questions have been raised about how he treated British Chagossians.' Sir Keir has repeatedly insisted the Chagos deal represents value for money and has warned British national security would have been at risk had he not signed it. He announced the agreement to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius on May 22 despite concerns about how the deal could harm the UK's national security. The Telegraph disclosed last week that once the deal comes into force, Britain will be required to inform Mauritius about any future air strikes on Iran because of Sir Keir's deal. When the agreement was first announced in October, it was heralded by Mr Lammy as proof that Britain upholds its commitments under international law. Sir Keir and Mr Lammy have both claimed that, if Britain had not agreed to give the islands away, it would have been weeks before Mauritius began a successful legal challenge. They said this would have endangered Diego Garcia and put British and American control of the base at risk. Ownership of the Chagos Islands, known officially as the British Indian Ocean Territory, has long been disputed in the international courts. Multiple findings, including one by the United Nations, have claimed ongoing British ownership of the territory was unlawful. The US government, under previous administrations, has actively sought to resolve the issue to protect its assets in the Indian Ocean. In an article for The Telegraph last month, John Healey, the Defence Secretary, said Diego Garcia acted as a necessary 'launchpad to defeat terrorists'. Claire Bullivant, the chief executive of the Great British PAC, said: 'This is not just a legal challenge – it's a moral reckoning. 'The UK Government cannot in good conscience or lawful practice sign away the homeland of the Chagossian people without first speaking to them. To exclude them yet again is to rewrite history with the same pen of injustice. 'The Great British PAC stands firmly behind this challenge because true democracy demands consultation, not quiet deals behind closed doors.'
BBC News
3 days ago
- Health
- BBC News
Parents seek judicial review over disabled son's death
Grieving parents who allege their disabled son died prematurely due to inadequate hospital care say they want to push for a judicial review after a coroner ruled the death was of natural and Louise Patel, from Barnet, say they want to challenge the findings of an inquest at London Inner South Coroner's Court, which concluded their 30-year-old son, Balram, died from complications linked to heart failure and terminal liver cancer."There was nothing natural about the way my son died," said Mr Patel, calling the verdict a "whitewash".Coroner Julian Morris acknowledged the family's concerns but found the medical staff acted reasonably. But Mr Patel said Balram died "because of a series of clear, documented, and avoidable clinical failures." Balram was born without the right side of his heart and had multiple had been under the care of Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust throughout his August 2023, he was discharged from hospital with oral diuretics (a medication that helps the body get rid of excess fluid) instead of what his parents claim should have been intravenous treatment.A day before his death, Balram was visited at home by the palliative care team and readmitted to hospital with a raised infection rate and a build-up of fluids, where he was transferred to a ward before received CPR for 30 minutes before he was pronounced dead. Mr and Mrs Patel said they were unaware their son's heart condition was terminal, believing his hospital discharge was part of his palliative care plan for liver cancer. In his verdict, the coroner criticised the hospital for its communication, finding that consultants had failed to ensure Mr and Mrs Patel knew the extent of their son's illness. Judicial ReviewsJudicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion are not concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were right, as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the 'correct' may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way. Mrs Patel said it felt like the doctors were "playing God"."The doctors decided when he should die. They didn't give him a last chance, even if it was a half an hour or a day more. "He should have been given a chance. He was a fighter all his life."A spokesperson for Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust said: "Balram was terminally ill and had been under our care throughout his life, during which our teams did everything they reasonably could for him."We again extend our deepest sympathies to Balram's family."
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
Kinvara residents seek to bring challenge against housing of asylum seekers at hotel
Several residents of a Co Galway village want to bring H igh Court proceedings in a bid to stop the Government's decision to house international protection applicants at a local hotel. Kinvara residents Ruth Sexton, Mary Boyce, Chris Hartnett Dalton and Paul Collins are seeking permission to challenge the recent decision to place up to 98 people in the Merriman Hotel, which is currently home to about 50 Ukrainian people. According to court documents, the hotel has been used to accommodate people seeking international protection since 2019. The residents say the hotel has 32 rooms. The residents want to bring the judicial review proceedings against the Minister for the Department of Children, Equality, Disability and Integration and the Minister for the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. It is proposed that MLC Hotel Ltd, the hotel owner, be made a notice party in the action. READ MORE According to the residents, a meeting of Kinvara Community Council was in March informed of the Minister for the Department of Integration's decision to designate the hotel as accommodation for 98 international protection applicants. In making that decision, the residents claim the Minister failed to assess or evaluate the suitability of the Merriam Hotel to accommodate those people. They also say the Minister failed to assess or evaluate the availability of amenities in the local area, such as school places and medical services. They claim the use of the hotel as an accommodation centre since 2019 has resulted in losses of up to €13.3 million to the local area. None of the €9 million paid to MLC Hotel Ltd through its contract to provide accommodation has benefited the local community, the residents claim, leading to the closure of restaurants and reducing opening hours at local pubs. They say the Minister has failed to assess or evaluate the economic impact of his decision. Moving the application to bring the judicial review proceedings this week, barrister Mary Moran-Long, for the residents, said her clients were representing the community of Kinvara. Ms Sexton, of Sexton's Bar, Main Street, Kinvara, is a publican; Ms Boyce, of Cathercon, Kinvara; is a homemaker; Mr Hartnett Dalton, of Northampton, Kinvara, is a financial broker; and Mr Collins, of Crushoa, Kinvara, is a publican. Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger said she felt there was insufficient material before the court to make a decision on whether to give Ms Moran-Long permission to bring the proceedings. She permitted Ms Moran-Long to amend her court documents and file additional sworn statements as required. Ms Justice Bolger adjourned the case to next month. She directed that the respondents, the Minister for the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, and Integration and the Minister for the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, be put on notice of the application for permission to bring the judicial review proceedings.
