1269 users online (236 members and 1033 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 6 14 15 16 17 18 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 258
  1. #226
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,911
    Kingston-upon-Hull 4

    T20177116

    majid mustafa
    robert lipinski

    Details: Plea and Trial Preparation - Case Started - 10:05

    Plea and Trial Preparation - Case to be listed on date to be fixed - 10:16


    http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hea...rown-Court.php

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    5,911
    Majid Mustafa, 47, of Beamsley Way, Kingswood, and Robert Lipinski, 45, of Huntingdon Street, west Hull, have been charged with conspiracy to administer a noxious substance and conspiring to cause GBH to a man.
    Mr Lipinski also received a further charge of conspiring to administer a noxious substance to his own wife.

    Mr Mustafa appeared in the dock at Hull Crown Court for a short hearing on Monday, but Mr Lipinski had not arrived and was en route from HMP Leeds.

    Judge Jeremy Richardson QC set a trial date of October 9, and a pre trial review is due to be heard early in September at a date to be fixed.



    Read more at http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/renat...A4BgzyZd3vT.99

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Warks, UK
    Posts
    92
    That article also mentions it is now being treated as a "potential murder" enquiry,

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,747

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,747
    A man charged in connection with the disappearance of Hull lawyer Renata Antczak has had a bail application refused.
    Robert Lipinski, 45, of Huntingdon Street, west Hull, is in custody and made a bail application at Hull Crown Court through his barrister David Godfrey on Monday.
    The application, which was heard in open court and was opposed by prosecutor Charlotte Baines, was refused by Judge Jeremy Richardson QC.

    http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/...antczak-138700

  7. #232
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Stringa
    Posts
    1,103
    Mr Mustafa appeared at Hull Crown Court yesterday [14 July '17] where an application for bail was heard in chambers, in a hearing not open to the press or public.

    Judge Mark Bury refused the application following the short hearing.

    A trial date has been set for October 9, and a pre-trial review is due to be heard early in September at a date to be fixed.

    http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/...mustafa-202933

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,747
    Why would that hearing have been held in private?

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,747
    I have found the relevant rules, I think.

    https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part39

    General rule – hearing to be in public

    39.2
    (1) The general rule is that a hearing is to be in public.
    (2) The requirement for a hearing to be in public does not require the court to make special arrangements for accommodating members of the public.
    (3) A hearing, or any part of it, may be in private if –
    (a) publicity would defeat the object of the hearing;
    (b) it involves matters relating to national security;
    (c) it involves confidential information (including information relating to personal financial matters) and publicity would damage that confidentiality;
    (d) a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of any child or protected party;
    (e) it is a hearing of an application made without notice and it would be unjust to any respondent for there to be a public hearing;
    (f) it involves uncontentious matters arising in the administration of trusts or in the administration of a deceased person’s estate; or
    (g) the court considers this to be necessary, in the interests of justice.

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortoise View Post
    Why would that hearing have been held in private?
    Perhaps they had to mention rather sensitive evidence that can't be made public until a trial.


  11. #236
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Stringa
    Posts
    1,103
    Tortoise, I think that's the rules for civil trials, here are the rules for criminal hearings. They're not as broad for reasons to have hearings held in private.
    _________________

    2. Hearings from which the public may be excluded

    2.1 Trials in private: all criminal courts**

    In accordance with the open justice principle, the general rule is that all court proceedings must be
    held in open court to which the public and the media have access. The common law attaches a very
    high degree of importance to the hearing of cases in open court and under Article 6 ECHR the right
    to a public hearing and to public pronouncement of judgment are protected as part of a defendantís
    right to a fair trial.

    The court has an inherent power to regulate its own proceedings, however, and may hear a trial or
    part of a trial in private in exceptional circumstances. The only exception to the open justice
    principle at common law justifying hearings in private is where the hearing of the case in public
    would frustrate or render impractical the administration of justice.10 The test is one of necessity. The
    fact, for example, that hearing evidence in open court will cause embarrassment to witnesses does
    not meet the test for necessity.11 Neither is it a sufficient basis for a hearing in private that
    allegations will be aired which will be damaging to the reputation of individuals.12 The interests of
    justice could never justify excluding the media and public if the consequence would be that a trial
    was unfair.13

    Rules 16.6‐16.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013 govern procedure ďwhere a court can order a
    trial in privateĒ.14 A party who wants the court to hear a trial in private must apply by notice in
    writing not less than 5 business days before the start of the trial.15 The application must be displayed
    within the vicinity of the courtroom and give notice to reporters.16 The media should be given an
    opportunity to make representations in opposition to the application.17 If the order is made, the
    proceedings must be adjourned for a short period to allow for an appeal to the Court of Appeal
    under s.159 Criminal Justice Act 1988.18

    Hearing a case in private has a severe impact upon the general publicís right to know about court
    proceedings, permanently depriving it of the information heard in private. It follows that if the court
    can prevent the anticipated prejudice to the trial process by adopting a lesser measure e.g. a
    discretionary reporting restriction such as a postponement order under s.4(2) Contempt of Court
    Act, it should adopt that course.**In making an application for a case to be heard in secret, a party
    must explain why no measures other than trial in private will suffice.19

    Often the adoption of practical measures such as allowing a witness to give evidence from behind a
    screen or ordering that a witness shall be identified by a pseudonym (such as by a letter of the
    alphabet) and prohibiting publication of the witnessís true name by an anonymity order under s.11
    CCA (see below), will remove the need to exclude the public. Another possibility, where only a small
    part of the witnessís evidence is sensitive, is to allow that part to be written down and not shown to
    the public or media in court. However, measures such as these are also exceptional and stringent
    tests must be satisfied before they are adopted.

    The necessity test requires that even where a court concludes that part of a trial should be heard in
    private, it must give careful consideration as to whether other parts of the same case can be heard
    in public and must adjourn into open court as soon as exclusion of the public ceases to be necessary.

    Circumstances which may justify hearing a case in private include situations where the nature of the
    evidence, if made public, would cause harm to national security e.g. by disclosing sensitive
    operational techniques or identifying a person whose identity for strong public interest reasons
    should be protected e.g. an undercover police officer. The application to proceed in private should
    be supported by relevant evidence and the test to be applied in all cases is whether proceeding in
    private is necessary to avoid the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered
    impractical. Disorder in court may also justify an order that the public gallery be cleared. Again the
    exceptional measure should be no greater than necessary. Representatives of the media (who are
    unlikely to have participated in the disorder) should normally be allowed to remain.

    [...]

    Hearings from which the public may be excluded

     The general rule is that all court proceedings must be held in open court to which the public
    and the media have access

     The court may hear trials in private in exceptional circumstances where doing so is necessary
    to prevent the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical**

     Where lesser measures such as discretionary reporting restrictions would prevent prejudice to
    the administration of justice, those measures should be adopted

     Where is it necessary to hear parts of a case in private the court should adjourn to open court
    as soon as it is no longer necessary for the public to be excluded

     The embarrassment caused to witnesses from giving evidence in open court does not meet the
    necessity test

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...Z7nNzqGxLzxa1w

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Stringa
    Posts
    1,103
    Nothing really new, but a recap and timeline on the 100 day anniversary of Renata's disappearance and a renewed appeal for info.
    ________________

    A force spokeswoman said: "We are asking the media to re-issue our appeal to find Renata Antczak in the hope it will prompt someone who has any information relating to her disappearance to come forward.

    "We are continuing with our investigations to find out what has happened to Renata Antczak."

    Renata or anyone with information on her whereabouts are urged to call the police immediately on 101 quoting log 324 of April 26.

    http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/...at-know-276717

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    8,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Legally Bland View Post
    Nothing really new, but a recap and timeline on the 100 day anniversary of Renata's disappearance and a renewed appeal for info.
    ________________

    A force spokeswoman said: "We are asking the media to re-issue our appeal to find Renata Antczak in the hope it will prompt someone who has any information relating to her disappearance to come forward.

    "We are continuing with our investigations to find out what has happened to Renata Antczak."

    Renata or anyone with information on her whereabouts are urged to call the police immediately on 101 quoting log 324 of April 26.

    http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/...at-know-276717
    bbm I take this to mean they are still not sure she is dead?

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Elainera View Post
    bbm I take this to mean they are still not sure she is dead?
    I'd say they're pretty convinced she is already gone but until they have proof they still have to appeal directly to her as well as the general public.

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Legally Bland View Post
    Mr Mustafa appeared at Hull Crown Court yesterday [14 July '17] where an application for bail was heard in chambers, in a hearing not open to the press or public.

    Judge Mark Bury refused the application following the short hearing.

    A trial date has been set for October 9, and a pre-trial review is due to be heard early in September at a date to be fixed.

    http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/...mustafa-202933
    Well there's been no pre-trial review, I've just checked all the court hearings.

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 6 14 15 16 17 18 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-25-2017, 12:01 PM
  2. Found Safe IN - AK, 14, Schererville, 27 April 2017 *Arrests*
    By LisaWL7TR in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-24-2017, 04:10 PM
  3. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 05-06-2017, 02:58 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-30-2017, 07:04 PM

Tags for this Thread