Background: Mahmoud Abu Khdeir, a 21-year-old university student with no prior convictions, was charged with two counts of purchasing a firearm, one count of carrying a firearm, and one count of possessing a firearm. The indictment alleged that he purchased two Glock pistols, two magazines, and 89 rounds of ammunition. One pistol, a magazine, and 11…
Held: Justice Khaled Kabub allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that a probation report is an important aid but does not bind the court, which retains responsibility for detention decisions and must critically examine whether the report rests on considerations within the probation service's expertise. Here, the service's principal concern—the unresolved source and nature of the threats—was a matter for…
Background: G.B., a Georgian national, sought international protection after a dispute arising from a workplace accident allegedly led to extortion, threats, and an assault by his neighbour’s relatives. He also relied on later incidents involving explosives thrown at his family’s apartment and threats made against him during an attack on his mother. The International Protection Appeals…
Held: Mr. Justice Cian Ferriter refused an extension of time to challenge the Tribunal decision. The operative section 46 decision was made and notified on 5 August 2025, and the later Regulation 10 correction of a minor administrative omission did not restart the statutory 28-day period. The Court observed only that a correction materially changing the reasoning or first revealing a…
Background: Tan Zhi Wei pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and drink driving, with a dangerous-driving charge involving hurt to his two young children taken into consideration. After drinking wine, having slept only about four hours and having taken medication that could cause drowsiness, he drove at up to 122 km/h on a road with…
Held: The High Court dismissed both appeals and left the 11-year sentence undisturbed. It adapted the sentencing framework in Ng En You Jeremiah v Public Prosecutor to the applicable statutory range of six to 19 years, producing bands of six to ten years, ten to 15 years and 15 to 19 years. The offence fell within the second band, and a…
Background: Karen McIlroy held 50% of Liberas Solutions Limited, an IT consultancy-services company formed by her husband, Michael McIlroy, and Deon Minaar. She held the shares as her husband’s nominee because his employment position prevented him from becoming a shareholder when the company was incorporated. The court found that she was largely a director in name…
Held: HHJ Paul Matthews dismissed the petition. The court rejected each pursued complaint, finding that McIlroy had access to financial information and was already a bank signatory; that Minaar’s payments to himself were authorized by agreements reached with Michael McIlroy; and that Minaar had performed the work for which his companies were paid. Their business arrangements had become ad hoc, and…
Background: A jury found Toni-Ashley Crawford guilty of murdering Teri Rhind. In the early hours of 18 October 2024, Crawford encountered Rhind on Wellington Street in Pukekohe, drove past him, made a U-turn, crossed into the opposite lane, and intentionally struck him from behind while travelling at approximately 60 kilometres per hour and accelerating. Rhind suffered…
Held: Harvey J held that life imprisonment, the presumptive sentence for murder, would not be manifestly unjust. Although Crawford had experienced trauma, addiction, mental-health difficulties, and possible methamphetamine-induced psychosis, the evidence did not show that she lacked control over or appreciation of her actions. Her trial defence had been that the collision was accidental, and the jury’s verdict established murderous intent.
Background: Idahoans United for Women and Families qualified Proposition One, the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, for Idaho’s November 3, 2026, general-election ballot. Idaho law required the secretary of state and attorney general to jointly prepare clear and concise statements explaining the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote.
Held: The Idaho Supreme Court held that Idahoans United had relaxed standing because the dispute implicated Idahoans’ fundamental initiative right, required urgent resolution, and otherwise might evade meaningful review. The court also held that its constitutionally conferred original jurisdiction permitted mandamus and prohibition notwithstanding the ballot-statements statute’s silence about judicial review. Sovereign immunity and separation-of-powers principles did not bar relief.
Background: Zhaohui Xu commenced proceedings under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), seeking to set aside deed administrator Desmond Teng’s rejection of Mr Xu’s proof of debt against Firmtech Aluminium Pty Ltd. Mr Xu sought admission of the claim for $489,275.95 plus interest.
Held: Black J ordered Mr Xu to pay Mr Teng’s costs of both the proceedings and the costs application, but made no order as to costs between Mr Xu and Mr Zhang. Under UCPR r 42.19, the ordinary starting point following discontinuance is that the plaintiff pays the defendant’s costs unless the court orders otherwise.
Background: Quintin Webster and Ladochye Webster married in 1988 and had no children. Quintin moved elsewhere in the 1990s and never lived in the condominium the couple purchased in 1996 in Ladochye’s name. He admitted committing adultery during their separation but maintained that Ladochye knew of and permitted it as part of an open marriage. They…
Held: The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that KRS 392.090(2) required Quintin to forfeit all right and interest in Ladochye’s property and estate. The undisputed evidence established that he voluntarily left her and lived in adultery. His assertion that their separate living arrangement was mutually chosen did not change the fact that he voluntarily left, and his admitted course of adultery…
Background: Jasmine Jade Gariet sued Harris County for negligence and gross negligence after Harris County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Jeffrey Saunders struck her car while responding to a priority-one residential-burglary call. Saunders entered an intersection against a red light with his emergency lights and siren activated. Gariet had a green light, and the collision caused her vehicle…
Held: The court’s majority reversed the trial court and rendered judgment dismissing Gariet’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. As described in the dissent, the majority held that Gariet failed to raise a fact issue regarding application of the Texas Tort Claims Act’s emergency exception.
Background: NN applied for Swedish citizenship. The Swedish Migration Agency denied the application, and NN appealed that decision to the Government.
Held: The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the application as inadmissible. Sections 1 and 3 of the Act on Judicial Review of Certain Government Decisions permit an individual to seek review of a government decision only when it involves determining the individual’s civil rights or obligations within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Background: The dispute began with respondent Shlomo Weitz's application to enforce a promissory note for NIS 25,000 against the applicant, attorney Ronen Haim Hatashuel. After Hatashuel objected, the matter was transferred to the Jerusalem Magistrates' Court, where he filed a third-party notice against Limor Gabay and Amir Paz Poznanski. Following a partial consent judgment for an…
Held: Justice Yehiel Kasher denied the stay application without requesting a response from the respondents. The Court reiterated that filing an appeal does not itself stay enforcement and that a stay requires both favorable prospects on appeal and a balance of convenience favoring the applicant. Those considerations operate on a sliding scale, but the balance of convenience carries primary weight.
Background: The applicant, a 50-year-old woman from Georgia, sought judicial review of an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision affirming the refusal of refugee and subsidiary-protection declarations. IPAT accepted that she had suffered domestic violence from her husband, had a well-founded fear of persecution, and belonged to a particular social group comprising victims of gender-based or domestic…
Held: Mr Justice David Keane refused all substantive relief. The applicant’s first two grounds were foreclosed by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Z.M. v IPAT and N.G. v IPAT [2025] IECA 208, whose proposed appeal had subsequently been refused by the Supreme Court. IPAT was entitled to assess the availability of state protection after finding a well-founded fear of persecution;…