Latest news with #judicialsystem
The Independent
13-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP
It comes to something when a senior member of a recent government – the former justice secretary, no less – describes actions by the state that were part of his remit as 'overbearing, unfair and almost totalitarian'. Yet this is how Alex Chalk KC, who held that office for 14 months in the government of Rishi Sunak, describes imprisonment for public protection (IPP) orders – which can keep someone in prison indefinitely after conviction for a relatively minor crime. Ousted from government by his party's defeat at the last election, and also from his parliamentary seat, Mr Chalk has returned to his legal practice. It is from this perch that he is now asking his successor, Shabana Mahmood, to consider new proposals – from the Howard League and a former lord chief justice, Lord Thomas – with a view to righting this now longstanding wrong. At The Independent, we make no apology for returning once again to the iniquity of IPP orders that go against so much of what should constitute any civilised judicial system. Two features stand out. There is the glaring disproportionality in so many cases between the crime and the punishment, with some prisoners having served almost 20 years (and still counting) for offences such as robbing someone of their mobile phone or laptop. This is not, by the way, to diminish such crimes, but to point up the disparity between the standard tariff for such a conviction and the actual time served by many of those still subject to IPP orders. The other feature is the cruelty of imposing a sentence that has no end, which has been described by the UN as psychological torture. With no prospect of a release date, more than 90 such prisoners have taken their own lives. Altogether, more than 2,500 are still languishing in jail on IPPs. This is in spite of these indefinite prison terms having been abolished in 2012, just seven years after they were introduced. The clear mistake then was not to have made the abolition retrospective. It applied only to new convictions, not to those already in jail, leaving the glaring injustice that one day could make a difference between someone left to serve what could become a lifetime sentence and someone convicted of a similar crime with a clear idea of the timetable for release or parole. The failure to make abolition of IPP orders retrospective has had consequences of its own. At least some of those still not released are now so damaged by their experience and will be so hard to rehabilitate that they could indeed present a danger to society if they were released. This is the very opposite of what a penal system should set out to achieve and amounts, in Mr Chalk's words, to nothing less than a failure on the part of the state. At which point, there is an obvious and not unreasonable question for the former justice secretary to answer. If the injustices and perverse effects of IPP orders were so apparent when he came to office – as they were – why did he not do something about it? Why did he not condemn the policy in the same terms as he is doing now and make the changes he is demanding be made by his successor? Part of his answer is that he did do something. He reduced from 10 to three the number of years that a released IPP prisoner was on licence and so subject to recall. That is not nothing, but it was nothing like enough. Two small pleas might also be made on his behalf in mitigation. As he says, there was 'not a single vote' in even the change in the licence period that he made, because of the general lack of public sympathy for prisoners. As he does not say – but is a sentiment with which the current government could well concur – a year can be too short a time in UK politics when it comes to getting anything done. The ponderous nature of the legislative process can be a minus as well as a plus. On the other hand, the size of the Labour government's majority and the years it still has to run mean it has time on its side. After more than a decade of political foot-dragging around IPP orders, however, there is no time to lose. The proposals from the Howard League and Lord Thomas show how this could be done, and offer sufficient safeguards for the public in terms of conditions for those who may be released and a new drive to rehabilitate those still considered a danger to society. At a time when other prisoners are being released ahead of schedule to free up scarce cell space, and the Exchequer needs every penny of saving it can get, it makes no sense at all to keep IPP prisoners inside any longer than the public's safety requires. As Alex Chalk says of the one reform he did make, this may not win a single vote, but it would be the right thing to do. Indeed it is – and the sooner it is done, the better.
Daily Mail
01-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
'Heartbroken' Zara McDermott fights back tears hearing harrowing account of woman's stalking at hands of her ex in new BBC documentary
A 'heartbroken' Zara McDermott fought back tears when she heard the harrowing account of a woman's stalking at the hands of her ex in a new documentary. The first episode of the former Love Island star's latest project, To Catch A Stalker, airs on BBC Three on Tuesday evening at 9pm. It sees Zara, 28, join and support victims who have been subjected to domestic abuse and stalking and expose how stalking brutally impacts the everyday lives of people across the UK. She will also follow the journey of those who decided to report the instances to the police and how the claims make their way through the judicial system. Both instalments are already available to stream on BBC iPlayer and are packed with sobering accounts. The second episode sees Zara sit down with an anonymous woman who recounted how her ex-partner stalked her after she ended the relationship. The first episode of the former Love Island star's latest project, To Catch A Stalker, airs on BBC Three on Tuesday evening at 9pm It will see Zara, 28, join and support victims who have been subjected to domestic abuse and stalking and expose how stalking brutally impacts the everyday lives of people across the UK She recalled how at the start he was 'very charming, caring, I didn't even imagine there was another side to him'. However, he would make her video call him '24 hours a day, every day, morning until night'. When the woman ended the relationship things took a terrifying turn. 'The continuous harassment, being outside of my house every other day, he would cry his eyes out and make me feel bad,' she recalled. Zara asked: 'Was he calling you and texting you?' 'He would call me more than 500 times a day and I would literally chuck my phone in some corner of my house,' the woman replied. She appeared to get emotional as she described how 'he made me hate myself for being in that situation'. The woman gestured a line across her neck with her hands as she recalled what he would do outside of her house, seeming to infer he was saying he would harm her. 'He didn't leave outside of my house for another five, six hours. I was terrified,' she added. Zara commented: 'That breaks my heart, hearing that.' 'He didn't leave outside of my house for another five, six hours. I was terrified,' she added. Zara commented: 'That breaks my heart, hearing that.' The woman submitted video, calls and text messages to the police and revealed she would be giving a witness statement at court against him. Zara asked the woman, 'How are you feeling through this?' 'Like I'm rubbish,' she replied, as Zara held her hand. The reality star looked tearful as she continued to listen to the woman and said: 'You did not deserve any of that, you know that?' Zara has brought a range of thought-provoking and critically acclaimed documentaries to the BBC over the last few years. The star has spoken about several important topics including revenge porn, sexism, and 'rape culture' in UK schools as well as the rise of young people experiencing eating disorders. But, after wrapping up filming for the stalking documentary in March, Zara admitted it had been one of her 'most emotional' yet, as she praised the brave women who appeared in the programme and voiced her hope that it would open up conversations. Sharing Instagram snaps of herself filming outside a police station, she wrote: 'It's our final week of filming for my documentary about stalking, and honestly it's been one of the most eye opening, emotional films I've ever made. 'I've learnt so much about the strength of victims / survivors through this process… some of these women are the strongest I've ever met. 'Stalking is one of the most isolating crimes out there. The pure determination of the women I've spoken to, to continually put one foot in front of the other every single day, is nothing short of inspirational.' She went on: 'I am so grateful to do the job that I do; to be able to hopefully make a difference in this world and make some positive change alongside the incredible people I am working with. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. 'This documentary series has been 18 months in the making, from development to where we are now. It's been a long process of finding a careful balance because of the sensitivity of this programme, but I hope it opens up conversations at home, in schools and in society. ❤️' To Catch A Stalker airs on BBC Three on July 1 at 9pm and is available to stream on iPlayer.
CNN
27-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Takeaways from the Supreme Court's ruling on power of judges and birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court delivered a major win to President Donald Trump on Friday in his ongoing war with the federal judiciary, limiting the power of courts to step in and block policies on a nationwide basis in the short term while judges review their legality. Though the case was intertwined with Trump's executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship, the ruling does not settle the issue of whether the president can enforce that order. And there were signs that lower courts could move swiftly to block the policy. But the high court's decision does mean that Americans seeking to challenge Trump's future policies may have to jump through additional hoops to succeed. Exactly how that will work remains to be seen and will be hashed out by lower courts in coming days. Here's what to know about the court's decision: The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling could have far-reaching consequences for Trump's second term, even if his birthright citizenship order is never enforced. That's because it will limit the power of courts to strike down other policies in the future. Presidents of both parties have complained about nationwide injunctions for years and Trump has noted, correctly, that there have been far more issued against him than presidents in the past. Lower courts, for instance, have used the orders to temporarily block his efforts to deport migrants under the Alien Enemies Act and prohibit transgender service members in the military. 'This was a big decision,' Trump said from the White House shortly after the ruling was issued. The president described the outcome as an 'amazing decision, one that we're very happy about.' But exactly how future litigation shakes out remains to be seen. Private parties – in the birthright citizenship case, a group of pregnant women who sued – may still be able to get a court to shut down a policy temporarily through a class-action lawsuit. And states may still be able to secure a hold on an administration's policies in the short term as well. By siding with Trump, the conservative Supreme Court ended a term with a second blockbuster decision in his favor for the second time in as many years. Last year, a 6-3 majority ruled that Trump – and other presidents – are at least presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office. The decision allowed Trump to avoid a trial on federal election subversion charges that were pending against him. And since taking office again in January, Trump has won case after case on the Supreme Court's emergency docket. A decision earlier in the week allowing Trump to deport certain migrants to countries other than their homeland marked the 10th time the court has granted a request from Trump on the emergency docket, though a few of those cases amounted to a mixed win for the administration. The court has allowed Trump to fire board members at independent agencies, remove transgender Americans from military service and end other protections for migrants, even those in the country legally. Friday's ruling, from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump has disparaged behind closed doors, is his biggest win yet. The court's three liberals split from their conservative colleagues' blockbuster ruling in blistering dissents, ringing the alarm on how the decision will permit Trump or future presidents to enforce unlawful policies even as legal challenges to them play out. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal wing, said the majority had 'shamefully' played along with the administration's 'gamesmanship' in the case, which she described as an attempt to enforce a 'patently unconstitutional' policy by not asking the justices to bless the policy, but instead to limit the power of federal judges around the country. 'The court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The executive branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully,' she wrote. The court's senior liberal member took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench on Friday for around 20 minutes. In doing so, she added in a line not included in her written dissent to invoke the court's landmark ruling last year that granted Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution. 'The other shoe has dropped on executive immunity,' Sotomayor declared from the bench. Separately, in a scathing solo dissent on Friday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to raise the stakes of the injunction case even more, accusing her conservative colleagues of creating 'an existential threat to the rule of law' by allowing Trump to 'violate the Constitution.' 'I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' she wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.' Though the court significantly curtailed the ability of Trump's legal foes to get the type of court orders that block or slow down his enforcement of various policies nationwide, the conservative justices left on the table one key legal avenue: class-action lawsuits in which a litigant sues on behalf of a larger group of similarly situated individuals to get relief for all people who could be potentially be affected by a policy. Several groups moved quickly Friday to do just that. The immigrant rights groups and pregnant women challenging Trump's order in Maryland pressed the federal judge who previously blocked the policy to do so again through a class action lawsuit. Such class-action litigation could potentially lead to the same outcome as nationwide injunctions – and during arguments in the case, several justices questioned the significance of shifting the emphasis to class-action suits. One difference is that a judge generally must take the extra step of thinking about who should be covered by an injunction. During arguments in the case in May, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the difference may be nothing more than 'technicality.' 'We care about technicalities,' he said at the time. 'And this may all be a technicality.' Lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs asked US District Judge Deborah Boardman to certify a nationwide class that would include any children who have been born or would be born after February 19, 2025, and would be affected by Trump's order. They filed an updated lawsuit that would challenge Trump's order on behalf of all of those potential class members. They also asked Boardman, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, for an emergency order that would temporarily block Trump's executive order from applying to members of a 'putative class' of individuals that would be impacted by the policy. 'Consistent with the Supreme Court's most recent instructions, the Court can protect all members of the putative class from irreparable harm that the unlawful Executive Order threatens to inflict,' the lawsuit states The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing challengers in another case over Trump's order, on Friday filed a new class action lawsuit targeting Trump's order. 'That's one of the ways in which people who are harmed around the country by President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship will be able to go and get protection from the courts for this fundamental American right,' ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang told CNN. Barrett was careful to say that parties could still seek nationwide relief to pause a policy if that was required to address their harm. That is precisely the argument nearly two dozen Democratic states made challenging the birthright policy and while the court didn't directly address it, it left wide room for states to make that claim again. The states had argued they needed a nationwide block on Trump's birthright citizenship policy because it was too easy for people to cross state borders to have a baby in New Jersey – where that child would be a citizen – rather than staying in Pennsylvania, where it might not. Now, the states will likely return to a lower court and argue that the birthright policy should remain on hold while courts decide its constitutionality. 'We believe that we will prevail and that we've made the case already, and when the lower courts, under the instruction of the US Supreme Court, do that review, we will secure a nationwide injunction to provide relief to the plaintiff states,' California Attorney General of California Rob Bonta, a Democrat, told reporters. 'It's now up to the lower courts to reconsider if the nationwide injunction is appropriate and necessary to provide complete relief to the states whose AG's sued to challenge this order,' he said. That litigation could eventually work its way back to the Supreme Court. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration was 'very confident' the Supreme Court would eventually rule in its favor on the merits of Trump's executive order. 'Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court,' Bondi predicted at the White House. While Bondi's predicted timing might be optimistic, given the court's usual pace, there is a good chance the issue will eventually wind up before the justices.
Washington Post
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Tracking Trump: Mahmoud Khalil's release ordered; court approves National Guard deployment; tax bill violates Senate rules; and more
A federal judge ordered the release of a detained noncitizen activist. An appeals court allowed the National Guard to remain in L.A. The Supreme Court declined to expedite a tariff challenge. The Senate parliamentarian ruled part of the GOP budget bill must be cut. Trump called for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election.
CBS News
17-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Keller: How Karen Read's trial highlights Americans' distrust of the court system
The opinions expressed below are Jon Keller's, not those of WBZ, CBS News or Paramount Global. Whatever the verdict is in the Karen Read re-trial, it is likely to be divisive, in part because public confidence in the courts is collapsing. Americans' trust in the courts drops "I trust in the jury pool," said Karen Read during jury selection for her re-trial. But that makes her part of a dwindling subset of Americans. A Gallup poll late last year found confidence in the courts has collapsed from a healthy 59% in 2017 to an abysmal 35%, the 10th largest drop in the world during that time frame. Countries with comparably low levels of confidence include the war-ravaged Congo, Chinese-governed Hong Kong, and Syria. As our political culture has slipped into an acute state of division, suspicion, and anger, one local expert sees it taking a toll on the courts as well. "The abortion decision, some of Trump's troubles with the courts, all of that contributed to people having less trust in the court system," said Boston College Law Professor Robert Bloom. That Gallup poll found people even trust the honesty of elections more than the judicial process. Karen Read verdict could be divisive And if the circus atmosphere of the Read case draws on skepticism of police ethics, cameras in the courtroom, and the role of high-profile trials as cultural, social and/or political litmus tests, you could call it a rerun of events 30 years ago in an Los Angeles courtroom, where O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the slaughter of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Many Americans will never accept that outcome, but Bloom said there's no reason for the Read verdict to be as divisive. "The level of lawyering has been really very good, and I think the judge has been good, and I think she's gotten a fair trial," he said. "With the collective wisdom of the jury, I would tend to rely on it." While the Simpson trial had wall-to-wall TV coverage, you didn't have social media types inflaming emotions, spreading speculation, and even allegedly intimidating witnesses. It will be interesting to hear from jurors what, if any, impact all that and the crowds outside the courtroom had on them. And with the courts increasingly cast as the last line of checks and balances on the White House, don't look for this politically charged environment to change anytime soon.
