https://t.co/lGH4nQd6uy
#BombayHighCourt begins hearing the plea filed by Arnab Goswami challenging his illegal arrest and detention by the Raigad Police in the first week of November 2020.
Bench of Justice SS Shinde and MS Karnik are hearing the matter.
https://t.co/lGH4nQd6uy
Ponda: Justice Chandrachud’s judgment is my best argument.
Court: But that also means that the case is still open.
The observations of the SC are prima facie.
Ponda begins reading paragraph 66 of the judgment.
Ponda: I am not asking for quashing the chargesheet based on SC order, but the judgment has to be respected.
Ponda asks the leave of court to amend the petition so as to bring on record the chargesheet after it will be served on them by the Raigad police.
Court grants such leave.
Court directs that the copy of the chargesheet should be served upon Goswami at the earliest.
Ponda opposes such request.
More from Bar & Bench
More from Court
Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.
Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.
It appeared an overtly political decision.
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.
A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.
The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.
The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”
Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.
Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
There will be no substantive change to the sentences passed on the killers of Pc Andrew Harper.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 16, 2020
The Attorney General\u2019s application to refer the sentences as unduly lenient and the defence applications for leave to appeal against sentence have been refused by the Court of Appeal. https://t.co/qxTzuj7jR3
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.
It appeared an overtly political decision.
Grimly cynical.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 12, 2020
The Attorney General - who has absolutely no experience of criminal law - is so desperate to exploit this tragic case that she is inserting herself into proceedings that she is not competent to conduct.https://t.co/QWdINvUwwf
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.
A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
Before the hearing, the Attorney General leaked to the Daily Express, via an alleged \u201cfriend\u201d, her views that, should the judges find against her, it will be because they are \u201cwet liberal judges\u201d who are \u201csoft on criminals\u201d. https://t.co/5uGggN8tTT
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 30, 2020
On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.
The Attorney General had to be embarrassingly corrected during the hearing by an actual criminal silk after making irrelevant and politicised submissions to the Court of Appeal.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 30, 2020
What a farce. pic.twitter.com/wy81xoFIDI
The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.
The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”
Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.
Zojuist procesverbaal zittingen in deze verkrachtingszaak gekregen. Zeg, @HofDenBosch, jullie LIEGEN echt alles bij elkaar in deze zaak en hebben ook doelbewust uit stukken gelaten dat ik de Nederlandse overheid verantwoordelijk hield voor het ontstaan van deze tweede zaak! 1/ https://t.co/M5KfflDkFJ
Wat ik onder anderen gezegd heb ter zitting?
"Deze tweede zaak kon ALLEEN gebeuren omdat in de eerste zaak geweigerd werd getuigen te horen. Vervolgens is deze getuige mij gaan bedreigen en chanteren. Meerdere politiemeldingen, politie deed NIETS" 2/
@HofDenBosch
"Uiteindelijk kon door het FALEN van de Nederlandse overheid deze getuige mij van mijn vrijheid beroven en heeft hij mij verkracht"
Dat laten jullie natuurlijk weer uit het procesverbaal @HofDenBosch!
Er is ook met geen woord gerept over een 'klacht over politieoptreden' betreffende deze tweede zaak, tijdens de zitting! De AG haalde de verkrachtingszaak uit het niets aan, niet een klacht over politieoptreden betreffende de tweede zaak!
Er was op dat moment nog niet eens aangifte gedaan in de tweede zaak, maar om de een of andere reden wist de AG al dat ik een intake gesprek had gehad! Ik heb de @politie gesproken (opgenomen gesprek), die begrepen OOK niet hoe de AG dat kon weten!
Vandaag heb ik alle kamerleden een brief gestuurd over de documentaire #filmzedan. https://t.co/W7hHJ0xbe1
— Pieke Roelofs - #filmzedan (@PhotoandGrime) October 6, 2020
Wat ik onder anderen gezegd heb ter zitting?
"Deze tweede zaak kon ALLEEN gebeuren omdat in de eerste zaak geweigerd werd getuigen te horen. Vervolgens is deze getuige mij gaan bedreigen en chanteren. Meerdere politiemeldingen, politie deed NIETS" 2/
@HofDenBosch
"Uiteindelijk kon door het FALEN van de Nederlandse overheid deze getuige mij van mijn vrijheid beroven en heeft hij mij verkracht"
Dat laten jullie natuurlijk weer uit het procesverbaal @HofDenBosch!
Er is ook met geen woord gerept over een 'klacht over politieoptreden' betreffende deze tweede zaak, tijdens de zitting! De AG haalde de verkrachtingszaak uit het niets aan, niet een klacht over politieoptreden betreffende de tweede zaak!
Er was op dat moment nog niet eens aangifte gedaan in de tweede zaak, maar om de een of andere reden wist de AG al dat ik een intake gesprek had gehad! Ik heb de @politie gesproken (opgenomen gesprek), die begrepen OOK niet hoe de AG dat kon weten!
