Linkedin Advertisement WhatsApp Facebook Print Twitter NewsLocal NewsProstitute was pregnant as she worked Limerick streetsBy admin – November 18, 2012 594 Previous articleIreland defeat Fiji at Thomond ParkNext articleHome help cuts “must be reversed” admin THEY had been promised a ‘completely different life’But prostitutes operating in the Catherine Street area of Limerick city in October 2011 and again last May ended up on criminal charges before Limerick District Court last week. 20-year-old Alexandra Chera and 23-year-old mother of one, Larisa Sturzea, who was pregnant while working as a prostitute, had been promised a “totally different life than what it turned out to be”, when they left Romania and came to Ireland.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up They were charged with loitering to solicit or importune others for the purposes of prostitution on dates in May. Both women pleaded guilty to the charges.Murish Gavin solicitor for Ms Chera said his client was a 20-year-old woman who “was promised a totally different life than what it turned out to be and now she just wants to finalise these matters and go home”.Judge Eugene O’Kelly convicted Ms Chera of the prostitution charge and applied the Probation act after he heard that she had made contact with certain services with a view to returning to Romania shortly.However, the court heard that Ms Sturzea, who had since moved to Dundalk, was not in a position to return to Romania as her three-month-old child was subject of a HSE care order. However she did have access and contact with the infant.Judge O’Kelly heard that the accused had now “regularised her life” and he adjourned the matter until May 9 and remanded her on continuing bail. Email
Top StoriesDelhi Riots- Supreme Court Reserves Judgment In Facebook VP Ajit Mohan’s Plea Challenging Delhi Assembly Summons Nupur Thapliyal24 Feb 2021 4:58 AMShare This – x”In the noisy times of the present, right to silence is a virtue. And leave it to me to decide, whether or not I want to go and lay down that the summon is an invitation and no more.” Salve concludes as Supreme Court reserves judgment in the plea.The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment in the challenge made by Facebook India Vice President Ajit Mohan to the summons issued by the Delhi Assembly Committee to enquire into Delhi riots. A bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy will deliver the judgment. Harish Salve, appearing on behalf of Mr. Ajit Mohan, concluded his…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment in the challenge made by Facebook India Vice President Ajit Mohan to the summons issued by the Delhi Assembly Committee to enquire into Delhi riots. A bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy will deliver the judgment. Harish Salve, appearing on behalf of Mr. Ajit Mohan, concluded his counter arguments today. Main thrust of Salve’s arguments rested on the contention that it was not the “core function” of the Delhi Legislative to constitute a Committee examining issue of peace and harmony when there is no legislative power rested with the Assembly to deal with the issue. “There are two broad silos, one is existence of powers in compulsion of appearance and second is competence. I will submit that they are wrong on both.” Salve submitted. Coming to the stand taken by the Delhi Assembly and Committee in Peace and Harmony, Salve submitted that the two had spoken before the bench in “two voices”. Salve submitted “They are saying nothing has changed. This convenient divide is something I would respect from a constitutional court to look into. On matters like to taken divergent stands, please do not miss the significance.” It was also submitted that the substituted notice issued by the Committee does not make any difference in the position as contemplated by the earlier notices. Commenting on the duality of the arguments, Salve argued “See the headiness today in the committee. It reeks of constitutional arrogance. Look at the arrogance in the arguments of the Committee. If they are right, they are right. Then we must know these are the kinds of monsters we have created.” Further submissions advanced by Mr. Salve rested on the contentions of right to silence and Committee’s power to compel appearance of third parties by summoning them. According to Salve, where an area is within the legislative competence of Union Parliament, a State Assembly could not legislate on such area owing to the doctrine of “incidental encroachment.” “By the doctrine of incidental encroachment, if there is encroachment or overlap, the law of parliament prevails. This is called the dynamics of encroachment.” Salve submitted. Salve also vehemently refuted the submission made by Dr. Singhvi that entry 39 of List 2 and GNCTD Act of 1991 when read conjointly with other entries of List 2 will show that the Delhi Assembly has the powers to deal with subjects which are otherwise excluded under Art. 239AA. “What is the power of summoning? I want to get Entry 39 out of the way. It has no role to play in the context of Delhi Assembly. I don’t know how this was even read. This is not a legislative assembly. Much as they want to be a constitutional power, they are not.” Salve submitted. Concluding his submissions, Salve submitted that working for an American Corporation i.e. Facebook, the Committee cannot compel Mr. Mohan to appear in order to give evidence. “Evidence by its definition is factual. And when you call somebody to give evidence, you are calling to find out what happened. The views are not evidence. The law of evidence prohibits evidence of the opinion of a witness except an expert witness.” Salve argued. Furthermore, Salve closed his submissions in the following words: “If you want my views, I don’t want to talk about peace and harmony in India. Today it may be Facebook, tomorrow it will be somebody else but there has to be a law laid down by your lordships. Please do not permit this kind of expansion of powers through the backdoor and please protect citizens’ rights and particularly right to silence. In the noisy times of the present, right to silence is a virtue. And leave it to me to decide, whether or not I want to go and lay down that the summon is an invitation and no more.” Salve concluded. Previous Reports can be read here:Facebook Vs Delhi Assembly- State Assemblies Cannot Deal With Issues Demanding National Response: Centre Tells Supreme Court’Hate Speech And Disinformation On Facebook A Global Concern’ : Dhavan Defends Delhi Assembly Summons To FB Vice President’Peace & Harmony Cannot Be Equated With Public Order’ : Dhavan Defends Delhi Assembly Summons To Facebook VPFacebook Cannot Invoke Article 32; Ajit Mohan’s Rights Not Violated : Delhi Assembly Tells Supreme CourtDelhi Assembly Competent To Discuss Delhi’s Peace & Harmony : Singhvi Defends Summons To Facebook VPAny “Senior, Responsible Officer” From Facebook Can Appear Before Delhi Legislative Assembly: Dr. Abhishek Singhvi Clarifies Before Supreme CourtDelhi House Panel Cannot Deal With ‘Law And Order’ As It Is Union’s Subject : Salve Submits For Facebook VPDelhi Assembly Lacks Competence To Summon Facebook For Enquiry Into Delhi Riots : Datar In Supreme CourtHouse Privileges Not Applicable To Activities Other Than Legislative Functions : Salve Submits For Facebook VPSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
426 people have tested positive for COVID-19 out of 5,158 samples collected in the last 24 hours Health CAS Mercy Mwangangi has said. This now brings the country case load to 31,441 number of positive cases.From the cases all are Kenyans except nine who are foreigners with 239 males and 187 females.Also Read Uhuru extends curfew ahead of his address Tuesday next week Cumulative tests in the country now stands at 407, 610.Cases by Counties is as follows; Nairobi 132, Kajiado 63, Kericho 48, Kiambu 24, Machakos 21, Migori 17, Mombasa 16, Kitui 13, Laikipia 13, Nakuru 11, Kisumu 11, Uasin Gishu 10, Tharaka Nithi 8, Nyeri 7, Busia 7.Also Read Govt moves to resolve land allocation dispute in East MauMore Counties: Makueni 6, Kilifi 4, Garissa 3, Nyandarua 3, Isiolo 2, Embu 2, Meru 1, Kirinyaga 1, Kakamega 1, Baringo 1, and Lamu 1.Also Read Relief for families as MOH revises Covid-19 burial protocols257 patients have recovered from the disease, with 195 being from the Home-Based Care program and 62 from various hospitals. Total number of recoveries now stand at 17,869.She revealed that the COVID-19 death toll had risen to 516 after 10 more patients died from complications related to the highly contagious respiratory disease. Speaking during the daily COVID-19 briefing, Dr. Mwangangi confirmed the youngest case is a three-month old infant while the oldest is 88 years.Get breaking news on your Mobile as-it-happens. SMS ‘NEWS’ to 20153
“I will ask for the referral,” said Beauquier.“Mr Diack has three counsel, two of them cannot come because of the border closure, linked to COVID-19 and these are his historic lawyers.”The request is set to be reviewed on June 8, when the hearing is due to start.The trial of Lamine Diack, his son Papa Diack, Gabriel Dollé, former director of the IAAF’s medical and anti-doping department, Habib Cissé, lawyer and ex-legal advisor to Lamine Diack, Valentin Balakhnichev, ex-President of the Russian Athletics Federation (ARAF) and former treasurer and vice-president of the IAAF and Alexei Melnikov, former head coach of long distance races at ARAF, was originally due to start in January.It was postponed to June 3 before a further five day delay.Lamine Diack, who led the IAAF from 1999 to 2015, is charged with “giving and receiving bribes”, “breach of trust” and “organised money laundering” and is facing a potential 10-year prison sentence for allegedly taking bribes to cover up tests showing doping by 23 Russian athletes.In their order for reference, the magistrates in charge of the investigation estimated that “Papa Diack could only be enriched in considerable proportions to the prejudice of the IAAF with the constant and enlightened support of his father, who cannot leave the sole responsibility for it to his son.”In the same document, judges say Lamine Diack “played an active role, abusing his quality as President of the institution, and effectively placed his son at the heart of the system put in place which enabled him to divert important upstream revenues from the IAAF funds.”Papa Diack, who lives in Senegal, is under an international arrest warrant issued on February 13 by French judicial authorities, while Balaknichev and Melnikov are also the subject of arrest warrants, however both the Senegalese and Russian Governments are refusing to extradite the accused.Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegram Papa Massata Diack has requested the postponement of a trial where he and his father are among the defendants, as two of his regular lawyers are unable to travel to Paris for the case.The case against Papa Diack, his father Lamine, who is a former President of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and four other defendants is due to open in Paris today June 8 after two delays. However, it appears another one could be on the cards.Two of Papa Diack’s preferred lawyers are unable to travel from Dakar in Senegal to France for the case because of restrictions of movement introduced due to the coronavirus pandemic, and his lawyer that can attend the court Maître Antoine Beauquier, has requested a further delay, as reported by Le Quotidien.