Background: Kenneth Kelly was sentenced to six years imprisonment on 26 June 2024 by Wexford Circuit Criminal Court after pleading guilty to three offences: demanding money with menaces, and two offences of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. The two firearms-related charges were "scheduled offences" under the Offences Against the State Act 1939, meaning they could…
Held: Justice David Keane dismissed the application. On the first ground (express communication of the direction), the court held that while best practice would require explicit statement of the direction to the District Court, failure to do so is not fatal to the validity of the return for trial. The court reasoned that the prosecution's very application to send Kelly to…
Background: Irama PTE Limited brought proceedings against Formark Scaffolding (Holdings) Limited in 2021 claiming rent arrears. At the Pre-Trial Review in January 2024, Irama failed to attend or obtain representation. Her Honour Judge Baucher struck out the claim and ordered Irama to pay Formark's costs, subject to detailed assessment, with an interim payment of £30,000. Irama,…
Held: Mr Justice Griffiths refused permission to appeal and confirmed HHJ Bloom's decision. On the threshold issue of Mr Malone's right of audience: At the time of the earlier hearing before HHJ Saunders, Mr Malone was employed by Formark's solicitors as a costs draughtsman, a role entitling him to appear on costs matters. By HHJ Bloom's hearing, he had been called…
Background: On April 21, 2026 (Israeli Independence Day eve), a group of fifteen minors attacked Yemenu Benjamin Zalka, a 19-year-old who was working at a Pizza Hut in Petach Tikva. The attack occurred after Zalka attempted to stop the group from harassing a girl. One of the minors stabbed Zalka in the groin with a knife,…
Held: Deputy President Noam Solberg partially granted the State's appeal. The court reversed the electronic monitoring decision for the first respondent and ordered his detention pending trial, while upholding the electronic monitoring arrangement for the second respondent. The court found that although both minors participated in a severe act of violence that amply established their dangerousness, they differed significantly in their…
Background: On September 25, 2021, Jorge Garcia was shot and killed at Roque's Café on Broad Street in Providence, Rhode Island. Surveillance footage from eleven cameras at and around the café captured the shooting. Investigators traced a black Dodge Ram—registered to defendant Juan Rivera—to the scene and developed evidence that Rivera and his associate Josue Calderon…
Held: The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Suttell, unanimously affirmed the conviction on all counts. On the authentication of surveillance footage (exhibits 22 and 24(A)–(C)), the Court held that Detective Michael's expert testimony—establishing that the DVR hard drive was in read-only format, that he had not altered the footage, that he explained the three-minute time…
Background: Tahmoor Coal Pty Ltd and Bargo Collieries Pty Ltd, both in liquidation, were parties to a Royalty Deed executed 20 April 2018 with Glencore Coal Pty Limited. The deed required the companies to pay royalties on coal mined and contained a "Consent Requirement" in clause 5.1 prohibiting transfer of mining leases without Glencore's prior written…
Held: Black J held that the Royalty Deed constitutes "property of the company that consists of a contract" under s 568(1)(f) and is therefore capable of disclaimer. The companies had contractual rights under the deed, including the right to compel Glencore's consent to transfers in circumstances satisfying clause 5.1(b) and to invoke confidentiality, expert determination, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The deed…
Background: Mme [U], an Azerbaijani national, arrived in France in May 2008 with three minor children. She obtained a temporary residence card with the notation "private and family life" under French immigration law. When she applied for family allowances (prestations familiales) for her dependent children, the Family Allowances Fund (CAF) of Bouches-du-Rhône rejected her application.
Held: The Court of Cassation held that EU Directive 2011/98/UE (the single permit directive) has direct effect in France despite France's failure to transpose it into national law within the required timeframe. Under this directive, third-country nationals who are lawfully admitted to an EU Member State—whether for work or other purposes such as family reunification—and who hold a residence permit conferring…
Background: On August 22, 2025, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service applied ex parte for a production order under section 20.4 of the CSIS Act in connection with an investigation into a threat to Canadian security under section 12. This was the first production order application ever brought under section 20.4, which was added to the CSIS…
Held: Justice Norris granted the production order and held that section 20.4 introduces a more focused, less intrusive investigative power than the broad section 21 warrant regime. Section 20.4 permits a designated judge to order any person or entity to produce information, records, or documents in their possession when satisfied by sworn information that there are reasonable grounds to believe: (1)…
Background: Rafael de Souza Horácio was tried for qualified homicide in a jury proceeding. During the trial, the defense raised two principal nullity claims: first, that jury incommunicability rules had been violated when juror Maria Luiza Passos Nunes accessed court files through the electronic filing system (PJE) before and during the trial and allegedly shared information…
Held: The Superior Tribunal de Justiça's Sixth Panel unanimously rejected the regulatory appeal. The Court applied the fundamental principle of Brazilian criminal procedure known as "pas de nullité sans grief" (no nullity without harm), codified in Article 563 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and established in STF Precedent 523. Under this doctrine, even claimed absolute nullities must be accompanied by…
Background: Richard Poteet, an experienced ranch hand employed by the Kinniburghs for eleven years, died in a workplace accident on the Kinniburghs' ranch. While vaccinating cattle, Richard and Kyle Kinnibrugh (the owners' son) worked together using a hydraulic squeeze chute—Richard administered vaccines while Kyle operated the chute's levers. When a cow became improperly positioned in the…
Held: The Texas Court of Appeals reversed and held that the LAFAA applies to bar Linda's claims. The court found that the Act's plain language protects against inherent risks of "farm animal activities" and "raising and handling of livestock on a farm," not merely direct injuries caused by the animals themselves. The court determined that the hydraulic chute was a routine,…
Background: The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on January 4, 2016, when struck by an automobile driven by a defendant. The defendant vehicle was insured with compulsory motor liability insurance. The plaintiff filed suit against the driver, the vehicle owner, and the insurance company seeking 10,000 TL in material damages and 40,000 TL…
Held: The Istanbul Regional Court reversed and remanded. The court held that the first instance court erred by rendering judgment without first ensuring compliance with Turkish Civil Code Article 612. That provision states: "When an inheritance is rejected by all of the closest legal heirs, the estate shall be liquidated by the civil court according to bankruptcy procedures." The estate cannot…
Background: Carmen M. Davila Scholz appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, decided by Judge Nicholas Richard Lopane. The lower court case number was 062025CP002598A001CE. Scholz was represented on appeal by counsel Martyn S. Elberg of Fort Lauderdale. The Estate of Dagmar Martinez did not file an appearance in…
Held: The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a per curiam opinion issued without written explanation. The court did not provide a statement of facts, legal analysis, or reasoning for its affirmance. This form of decision—affirming without a written opinion—is permitted under appellate procedure rules and typically indicates that the panel found no reversible error or…