Uk Court Quashes New Zealander’s Murder Conviction

With independence, money would be saved by getting rid of the Clyde-based Trident nuclear deterrent, he added. If Mr Hammond is so confident about his position, he should have the courage to face me in a debate, so that the Scottish public can discover the truth about how Westminster is under-funding Scotlands armed forces, the SNP minister said. The Scottish Government proposes a 2.5 billion defence force, assuming a Yes vote in the referendum next September. Further details of the plan are expected to be contained in the SNP administrations formal white paper on independence in the coming week. By 2020, UK ministers say there will be a joint force of 190,000 regular and reserves supported by 53,500 Ministry of Defence (MoD) personnel. Extracts of the UK Government report suggest it will focus on funding, jobs and the problems involved in splitting up an integrated military. The report concludes that transition to an independent force would be complex. Adapting to Scottish needs would result in a substantial burden on taxpayers, it claims. The UK Government has also suggested that bonds of loyalty may stop Scottish personnel from wanting to enlist in an independent defence force. Negotiations over assets and liabilities such as equipment would present an extremely difficult challenge, the report adds. The 86-page report is being published just days after MPs on the Commons Defence Committee said it would be remiss of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) not to consider the implications of independence. The MoD insists it is not making any preparation for a potential Yes vote next year.

It was an unusual intervention by the Privy Council Judicial Committee, which at the height of the British Empire was a very powerful body but still retains important powers now as a last ditch court of appeals. A five-judge panel ruled in favor of Mark Lundy, who was convicted in New Zealand in 2002 after a jury decided he had attacked his wife Christine, 38, and his daughter Amber, 7, with a weapon similar to a tomahawk at the family home. Lundy received a mandatory life sentence and his appeal was dismissed by the New Zealand Court of Appeals later in 2002. He eventually had his lawyers bring the matter before the Privy Council, which had the authority to hear the appeal because New Zealand did not have its own Supreme Court until 2003. Lundy brought the case before the Privy Council committee in November, more than 10 years after losing his initial appeal in New Zealand. His lawyers argued that he suffered a “substantial miscarriage of justice” when he was initially convicted. They argued that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The appeal was heard by four judges from Britain’s Supreme Court and one senior New Zealand judge. Lundy’s lawyers convinced the judges that fresh evidence should be considered in a new trial. Lundy is now in his mid-50s. The council said he should remain in prison in New Zealand until his bail request can be heard by the High Court there. Join the Discussion You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.

© 2016