Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD NEUBERGER AND LORD JUDGE (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Hope, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Reed agree) 1. This is an appeal brought by Mohammed Gul against a decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissing an appeal against his conviction for dissemination of terrorist publications contrary to section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 ("the 2006 Act"), for which he was sentenced to a term of five years' imprisonment (a sentence against which he also unsuccessfully appealed). The appeal raises the issue of the meaning of "terrorism" in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act"). The factual and procedural background 2. The appellant was born in Libya in February 1988, but he has lived much of his life in this country and he is a British citizen. In February 2009, as a result of executing a search warrant at his house, police officers found videos on his computer uploaded onto various websites, including the YouTube website. These videos included ones that showed (i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Descamps v. United States NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DESCAMPS v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 119540.Argued January 7, 2013Decided June 20, 2013 The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) increases the sentences of certain federal defendants who have three prior convictions for a violent felony, including burglary, arson, or extortion. 18 U.S.C. 924(e). To determine whether a past conviction is for one of those crimes, courts use a categorical approach: They compare the statutory elements of a prior conviction with the elements of the generic crimei.e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LADY HALE AND LORD DYSON (with whom Lord Phillips, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson agree) 1. These appeals are concerned with a little used provision in article 1F(c) of the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees ("the Refugee Convention"). This excludes from refugee status and protection "any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that . . . he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." For the time being at least, however, the Home Secretary accepts that these appellants cannot be returned to their home countries because they face a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment there. It is the grant of refugee status, rather than the right to stay in this country, which is in issue in these proceedings. 2. The issues in the two cases are different. In Al-Sirri, the question is whether all activities defined as terrorism by our domestic law are for that reason alone acts contrary to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD PHILLIPS Introduction 1. On 2 December 2010 the Swedish Prosecution Authority ("the Prosecutor"), who is the respondent to this appeal, issued a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") signed by Marianne Ny, a prosecutor, requesting the arrest and surrender of Mr Assange, the appellant. Mr Assange was, at the time, in England, as he still is. The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. They include "sexual molestation" and, in one case, rape. At the extradition hearing before the Senior District Judge, and subsequently on appeal to the Divisional Court, he unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the EAW on a number of grounds. This appeal relates to only one of these. Section 2(2) in Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act") requires an EAW to be issued by a "judicial authority". Mr Assange contends that the Prosecutor does not fall within the meaning of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus PACIFIC OPERATORS OFFSHORE, LLP, etal. v. VALLADOLID etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 10507.Argued October 11, 2011 Decided January 11, 2012 Petitioner Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP (Pacific), operates two drilling platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the California coast and an onshore oil and gas processing facility. Employee Juan Valladolid spent 98 percent of his time working on an offshore platform, but he was killed in an accident while work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sykes v. United States SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 SYKES V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SYKES v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 0911311.Argued January 12, 2011Decided June 9, 2011 When he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 8 U. S.C. 922(g)(1), petitioner Sykes had prior convictions for at least three felonies, including the state-law crime of us[ing] a vehicle to knowingly or intentionally fle[e] from a law enforcement officer after being ordered to stop, Ind. Code 354433(b)(1)(A) (2004). The Federal District Court decided that the prior convictions subjected Sykes to the 15-year mandatory minimum prison term that the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U. S.C. 924(e), provides for an armed defendant who has three prior violent felony convictions. Rejecting Sykes argument that his vehicle flight felony was not violent under ACCA, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Held...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Milner v. Department of Navy - 09-1163 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MILNER v . DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 091163.Argued December 1, 2010Decided March 7, 2011 The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to make Government records available to the public, subject to nine exemptions. This case concerns Exemption 2, which protects from disclosure material related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. 5 U. S.C.552(b)(2). This provision replaced an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exemption for any matter relating solely to the internal management of an agency, 5 U. S.C. 1002 (1964 ed.). Congress believed that the sweep of the phrase internal management had led to excessive withholding, and drafted Exemption 2 to have a narrower reach. Department of Air Force v. Rose , 425 U. S. 352 , 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project - 08-1498 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 HOLDER V. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, etal. v . HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 081498.Argued February 23, 2010Decided June 21, 2010 It is a federal crime to knowingly provid[e] material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. 18 U. S.C. 2339B(a)(1). The authority to designate an entity a foreign terrorist organization rests with the Secretary of State, and is subject to judicial review. [T]he term material support or resources means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Carr v. United States - 08-1301 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 CARR V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CARR v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 081301.Argued February 24, 2010Decided June 1, 2010 Enacted in 2006, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) makes it a federal crime for, inter alia, any person (1) who is required to register under [SORNA], and (2) who travels in interstate or foreign commerce, to (3) knowingly fai[l] to register or update a registration, 18 U. S.C. 2250(a). Before SORNAs enactment, petitioner Carr, a registered sex offender in Alabama, relocated to Indiana without complying with the latter States registration requirements. Carr was indicted under 2250 post-SORNA. The Federal District Court denied Carrs motion to dismiss, which asserted that the 2250 prosecution would violate the Constitutions ExPost Facto Clause because he had traveled to Indiana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD BROWN 1. The Refugee Convention was drafted for a world scarred by long years of war crimes and other like atrocities. There remain, alas, all too many countries where such crimes continue. Sometimes those committing them flee abroad and claim asylum. It is not intended that the Convention will help them. However clearly in need of protection from persecution an asylum seeker may be, he is not to be recognised as a refugee where "there are serious reasons for considering that (a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes". So states article 1F(a) of the Convention (and, for good measure, article 12(2)(a) of the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) “ this being implemented into domestic law by Regulations 2 and 7(1) of the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2525)). It is the Court...
Tag this Judgment!