ISLAMABAD: The anti-terrorism court on Monday adjourned its decision in defense of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s release in the PTV attack case. The court will announce the verdict on October 29.
During the trial, the PM’s attorney submitted a written argument on the request for release in the PTV attack case. He said there were no witnesses who testified about his alleged involvement in the case, nor was there any evidence against him. The PTV attack case was a political case, he said.
The lawyer said there was no possibility that PM Khan would be convicted in the case as it was a baseless case and asked the court to acquit him of all charges under Section 265 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The court also ruled in November after Prime Minister Khan Babar Awan’s advisers finished their arguments. The government prosecutors, during the trial, notified the court that the prosecutors had no objection to Imran Khan’s release. Regarding the judge’s question whether the prosecution would oppose the plea for acquittal, the prosecutor said it was a political case with no consequences.
It is stated here that PM Imran, President Dr Arif Alvi, Asad Umar, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Shafqat Mehmood and Raja Khurram Nawaz are facing trial for allegedly attacking the PTV building and the Parliament Building during the 2014 sit-in. The clash resulted in the death of three sit-in participants. . Hundreds including demonstrators and police officers were injured in the clashes.
This is a nightmare scenario that is common to international women living under the shadow of domestic violence in Australia.
New Zealand women in particular face a unique set of circumstances that pose major obstacles in enabling them to avoid partner abuse.
Under the general visa 444, New Zealanders have the right to live and work in Australia, but because they remain citizens of their homeland, they are not entitled to government benefits.
When faced with domestic violence and without funds to leave, many people as a last resort flee back to New Zealand, but can then be forced back by their abusers to Australia.
The legal instrument is the Hague Convention, which prevents children from being carried across the border illegally, and is primarily judged on the black-and-white fact of a border crossing, not mitigating circumstances.
Risk of serious harm
A case earlier this year uncovers the tragic and torrid story of a New Zealand mother and child caught in a nightmare of domestic violence in Australia, with no choice but to run away.
The Court of Appeal in New Zealand heard how the perpetrator, an Australian man, had multiple sentences for assault and breaching a protection order.
Tasmanian child protection services have files about families running across “several hundred pages”, the court heard.
The risk of harm to children – boys born in 2015 – is rated by protection services on a scale of 0 to 10 as “approx. 8”.
In 2017, the mother fled to a shelter and then to her homeland in New Zealand, unable to access financial support because of her visa status and returned to a place where she could get state aid, and support from her family.
The New Zealand lawyer working on the case, Daniel Vincent, has seen this scenario several times before.
“Of course there are problems for New Zealanders in Australia accessing support there, whether it be housing or financial support benefits, because of the limitations associated with their visas,” he said.
Lawyers and experts say the Hague Convention, which was signed by many countries including Australia 40 years ago on 25 October 1980, is outdated and used as a weapon of harassment, control and entrapment.
It was designed to stop men, who traveled more and more in the 1970s, from kidnapping children after breaking up and taking them to their home countries, where mothers would never see them again.
Now, it’s more commonly used against women, who make up more than 70 percent of runaway parents, according to The Hague
Globalarrk, a charity that supports families in the The Hague case, said its research showed 91 percent of the women in the Hague case had experienced abuse.
More than a third of Hague applications in Australia relating to a child taken abroad are for New Zealand – in the 2017/2018 financial year, there were about 30 cases according to the Attorney General’s Department.
The case of the woman who fled Tasmania has had tremendous results, however, in a decision that could affect future cases.
The court ruled in April that the mother could stay in New Zealand, nearly three years after her mother fled.
Vincent said he hopes the case shows how “unfair” the scenario is.
“We feel that if the spotlight is put on this, right-minded people will feel the same anger at how difficult it is for people with children in Australia who can’t access support there, and then be forced back into that. [abusive] environment with the operation of the Hague convention, “he said.
“The Hague Convention ended up being used as an instrument by abusive and controlling partners to bring victims back in their control because that person became dependent on them, for financial support.
Call for legal assistance and benefits
The mother has struggled for legal aid, which requires due diligence that the case will be won, usually meaning that the “taking parent” is not eligible because under The Hague they have undeniably “wrongly” moved the child – and vice versa, abandoned parents usually get it.
“The irony doesn’t disappear with us that dad can get legal help to appeal in a country he hasn’t even been to. Even though my client cannot get legal assistance for the very sad situation in Australia, ”said Vincent.
However, the importance of court decisions is that they go beyond the traditional assumption that the best interests of the child will be served promptly back and accept the defense that repayment will be a “great risk of psychological and physical harm or an intolerable situation”.
This defense is included in The Hague regulations, but rarely works because it is not required to account for domestic violence against its mother.
“What the appellate court is doing is acknowledging the psychological dangers for a child in being in a violent environment in the country – so there is no need to physically abuse the child directly,” said Vincent.
Both points, said Vincent, “will support the way the Hague convention case is resolved in New Zealand over the years”.
He said the way to improve the way cases are handled under the Hague Convention is to interpret them as “living documents”.
He also said it must ensure that those forced to return under The Hague’s orders can access legal aid and benefits.
“If anything can be brought in, especially in Australia, it seems, where protecting children and providing them with money is a problem, that’s fine,” he said.
The Australian Attorney General’s Office did not respond directly to questions about legal aid funding for “taking” parents, but said “people who experience, or are at risk of, family violence and their children are identified as the national priority client group for services.”
The problem of government ‘admitting’
A New Zealand Department of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman said it was regularly communicating with the Australian Government about the plight of New Zealanders facing domestic violence.
It said their concerns had been “acknowledged”.
“We are aware of the difficult situation some New Zealanders face who are subject to an Australian Family Court ruling and are unable to leave Australia with their children, who may also have limited access to Australian social support payments, despite living and working there for many. people. years, “said a spokesman.
It said the Australian Government had granted an exemption to the income threshold when applying for permanent residence under a 189 visa, for New Zealand citizens who were unable to leave the country due to a family court decision.
But the person has to live here for five years, and it costs $ 4,045, with a processing time of 15 to 25 months.
Responding to a question about the circumstances facing New Zealanders in Australia, the Department of Home Affairs said: “New Zealand citizens, permanent residents and eligible New Zealand citizens can sponsor partners to Australia through the Partner visa program.”
As part of the process, he also signed a declaration condemning extremism and declaring his allegiance to the German constitution.
But when she refused a female official’s handshake at the 2015 naturalization ceremony, she withheld her certificate and ultimately rejected her application, the newspaper reported.
The doctor argued that he simply refused to shake his hand because he promised his wife that he would not shake another woman’s hand, and her religious beliefs prevented her from doing that.
He was unsuccessful in bringing his case to the Stuttgart Administrative Court before filing an appeal to the Baden-Wurttemberg Administrative Court.
But the high court ruled that anyone who refused to shake hands for gender-specific reasons had violated provisions on equality in the German constitution.
The handshake can be considered a “fundamentalist conception of culture and values” and this refusal can be interpreted as a rejection of “integration into German living conditions,” The Independent reports.
The court also found that the handshake had legal significance because it symbolized the completion of a contract, DW reported.
Doctors can now appeal the ruling to federal court, the outlet said.
A committee has been formed to examine allegedly sham domiciles in Sindh, a provincial legal officer told the Sindh High Court (SHC) in a case related to sham domicile in the province.
The legal officer issued a notice regarding the constitution of a committee tasked with examining suspected fraudulent domiciles in Sindh.
MPA Muttahida Qaumi-Pakistan Movement (MQM-P) Khawaja Izharul Hasan, one of the applicants, questioned the competence of the committee, stating that its members had no knowledge of fake and genuine domicile. He said a commission should be formed to investigate the issuance of fake domiciles for non-residents of Karachi and other cities. He noted that the provincial government had failed to take action against issuing fake domiciles to non-residents of Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkur, despite some complaints. He added that government jobs were sold out after the issuance of fake domiciles to non-residents while permanent residents of Sindh urban areas, including Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkur, were deprived of their rights.
The chair of the SHC division chaired by Judge Mohammad Ali Mazhar after noting the comments, postponed the hearing at the request of an applicant wishing to review documents, and directed the office to fix the problem on November 2.
Hasan and other MPAs have petitioned that non-residents of the city be granted domicile by the government which would deprive Karachi residents of government jobs.
They said domicile and permanent residence certificate (PRC) should not be given to non-residents because it is the right of city residents to apply for government jobs.
The petitioners claim that non-residents have managed to secure government jobs and admission to professional universities based on sham domicile and PRC with urban quotas, which deprive Karachi citizens of government jobs and admission to professional colleges and universities.
The applicant’s lawyer said that the commissioner and deputy commissioner (DC) had been informed about the issuance of fake domicile and RRC along with evidence; however, no action was taken against the officer in charge.
The lawyer said that the commissioner and DC had guaranteed that they would be vigilant in the future but brokers and agents still facilitated the wider community in issuing fake domiciles and PRCs.
The lawyers argued that it was the government’s duty to ensure transparency and benefit in government work, and asked the SHC to direct the government to ensure that domicile should not be granted to non-residents. The high court was also asked to form a committee to examine the domicile and PRC issued from 2008 to the present.
The chief secretary previously made comments on the petition stating that a certificate of domicile was issued under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act. He said that there is no specific number of people who describe the urban population as migrating to urban areas in search of livelihoods and education, etc. He said that if a person moves to another district, gives up his previous district domicile and proves his permanent residence in the new district to the satisfaction of the authority concerned, he will be given a new district domicile as stipulated in the regulations.
The chief secretary proposed that Section 17 of the Pakistani Citizenship Act and Rule 23 of the Pakistani Citizenship Code entitles the person applying in a prescribed manner containing specified details for the awarding of the certificate which
the relevant authority (deputy commissioner) issues the same.
He said that in accordance with the 60 percent rural and 40 percent urban quota, every citizen in the relevant area has equal rights and opportunities to compete for recruitment. He said that anyone who is harmed by the provision of a domicile certificate / RRT can choose an appeal before the authorities concerned for the cancellation of documents according to law.
The main secretary stated that the nationality regulation provides for an investigation of a person if he obtained citizenship or domicile through fraud or false representation and if the person’s information is found to be false and in that case the person will be prosecuted under Article 177 Pakistan Criminal Code. He asked the SHC to reject the petition because it was untenable given the existing rules that provide a legal forum for compensation in the issuance of domicile / RRC under Rule 8 of the PRC Rule 1971.
A New Zealand court on Friday sentenced a woman to 14 days in prison for escaping from a COVID-19 isolation facility, according to local media.
The 37-year-old woman was sentenced by a local court in the Auckland District, Radio New Zealand reported.
The court also sentenced his 18-year-old daughter, but that rule was later withdrawn.
The woman faces charges for violating the 2020 COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and leaving the quarantine facility in July before completing 14 days of isolation.
According to her lawyers, the woman and her three children fled the hotel in Te Rapa on July 24 after flying from Brisbane to attend her husband’s funeral over an unexpected death.
“The defendant’s motivation was to shut down his children and in desperation, when it seemed they were running out of time, he made a move to get out,” the radio quoted female lawyer Joseph Hamblett as telling the court.
The judge announced a prison sentence for the woman for not complying with quarantine rules while accepting a lawyer request to release the teenager because she followed her mother’s instructions in a sad state.
“This is also a very realistic sad situation. Your father died suddenly and unexpectedly. I accept that you have a very close relationship with him,” said the judge.
“I suppose that wanting to see your father and say goodbye before his funeral has the effect of overriding a decision that might make sense.”
The maximum penalty in New Zealand for failing to comply with orders under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is six months imprisonment or a $ 4000 fine.
New Zealand has so far recorded 1,866 coronavirus cases with 25 deaths while 1,800 people have recovered, according to the Health Ministry.