Certainly! Here is the content you requested:
Web search results:
[1]: PART 52 – APPEALS - Civil Procedure Rules – Justice.gov.uk
(a) the decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, where that decision was made at a hearing; or
(b) service of the order of the Upper Tribunal refusing permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, where the decision to refuse permission was made on the papers. To the top planning statutory review …
URL: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part52
[2]: Court of Appeal hands down decision in Johnson, Wrench and Hopcraft
According to the Court of Appeal, no. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that for there to be an accessory liability in equity for assisting in a breach of fiduciary duty, the lender must act dishonestly [127] (twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and others [2002] UKHL 12, [2002] 2 AC 164). The claimant has the burden of establishing this.
URL: https://goughsq.co.uk/court-of-appeal-hands-down-decision-in-johnson-wrench-and-hopcraft/
[3]: The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) – Live streaming of court hearings …
By Appellant’s Notice submitted on 31 January 2025, Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP, petitioner below, applies for permission to appeal the decision of Chief ICC Judge Briggs, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dated 22 January 2025 dismissing the petition; and 23 January 2025 annulling the Bankruptcy O…
FROM THE ARTICLE BELOW :
The Court of Appeal followed the prosecution’s requisitions: it pays the accused concerning the detention of weapons of war. But it confirms the other charges, namely the “complicity of terrorist acts” and “complicity in assassination”.
The Court of Appeal confirms the conviction to a life prison sentence for the 4 accused: there is a driver, a person who has hosted the brain of the attack and two people accused of having helped the location of the premises and the conveyance of weapons.
At the statement of this verdict, the four defendants were collapsed. “I am not a terrorist!” “, Shouted one of them, when leaving the court, under police escort.
Their lawyer, Me Térémé Diaby believes that his customers were not proven that his customers were aware of the attack project, fomented by Kounta Dallah, the brain of this operation, when they contact their contact.
Defense intends to appeal to cassation.
The civil parties express their relief. Me Amadou Camara asks the state to guarantee themselves and to find the funds necessary to compensate the victims of the terrorist attacks. indeed, at first instance, the court had established between 10 and 30 million FCFA, the amount of repairs to be paid with each victim. But these funds are not available, deplores the lawyer for civil parties.
Terrorism Conviction Upheld: Examining the Appeal Process in West Africa
Table of Contents
- Terrorism Conviction Upheld: Examining the Appeal Process in West Africa
- Dr. Adjei, can you provide some background on the specific charges against the four individuals convicted in this case?
- The Court of Appeal confirmed the convictions but overturned one charge related to the possession of weapons of war. What does this suggest about the strength of the evidence presented against the defendants?
- The defense argues that the defendants were not aware of the attack’s planned nature. How does this defense strategy typically fare in cases involving terrorism charges?
- What are the implications of the civil parties’ request for state compensation for the victims?
- The defense intends to appeal the conviction to the cassation court. What are the chances of success in such an appeal, and what are the potential outcomes?
- This case underscores the complex legal and social challenges posed by terrorism. What are some key takeaways for policymakers and legal professionals in west Africa?
A recent court case in West Africa has seen four individuals convicted of complicity in a terrorist attack, with the court of Appeal upholding the life sentences handed down by the lower court. This interview with dr. Abena adjei, a leading expert on West African legal systems, explores the details of the case and the implications for future terrorism prosecutions in the region.
Dr. Adjei, can you provide some background on the specific charges against the four individuals convicted in this case?
Certainly. The four individuals were convicted on charges of complicity in terrorist acts and complicity in assassination. The prosecution’s case centered around their alleged roles in supporting the planning and execution of a deadly attack, with one individual identified as the driver, another as the person who harbored the attack’s mastermind, and the remaining two accused of assisting in the location of the attack site and the transportation of weapons.
This suggests that the prosecution’s evidence regarding the possession of weapons of war was perhaps not as strong as the evidence regarding the othre charges. It’s possible that the court found insufficient proof to link the defendants definitively to the possession of those weapons. However, the fact that the other charges were upheld demonstrates that the prosecution presented a compelling case regarding their involvement in the broader terrorist plot.
The defense argues that the defendants were not aware of the attack’s planned nature. How does this defense strategy typically fare in cases involving terrorism charges?
this is a common defense strategy in terrorism cases, as proving intent and knowledge of a planned attack can be challenging.The prosecution has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were aware of the attack’s nature and willingly participated in it. The defense will likely argue that their clients were unaware of the full scope of the plan or were misled by the mastermind,Kounta Dallah.
What are the implications of the civil parties’ request for state compensation for the victims?
This highlights a crucial aspect of terrorism cases: the need for victim support and redress. The victims and their families often suffer notable physical, emotional, and financial losses. The state has a responsibility to provide adequate compensation and support to these victims. The fact that the funds are not currently available raises concerns about the government’s commitment to fulfilling this obligation.
The defense intends to appeal the conviction to the cassation court. What are the chances of success in such an appeal, and what are the potential outcomes?
Appeals to the cassation court are typically focused on legal errors made during the trial rather than on re-examining the evidence. The defense will likely argue that procedural errors occurred or that the judge misapplied the law. The chances of success depend on the specific legal arguments presented and the cassation court’s interpretation of the case.if the appeal is successful, the convictions could be overturned, leading to a retrial or acquittal.
This case highlights the need for robust legal frameworks that effectively address terrorism while upholding due process and protecting the rights of the accused.It also emphasizes the importance of providing adequate support to victims of terrorism and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. it underscores the need for continued international cooperation in combating terrorism and sharing best practices for prosecution and prevention.