Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.
The annual Friends of Erin gala cocktail party turned Gurney’s Inn in Montauk green Saturday night. The traditional fete is a major Friends fundraiser to help underwrite the cost of the annual parade. Share
Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270. Subscribe
To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe now for unlimited access
Grupo CICE has recently ordered a Generation 5, G HMK 6407 Mobile Harbour Crane (a variant of Model 6) from Gottwald Port Technology GmbH (Gottwald).This crane has a maximum lifting capacity of 100 tonnes and a maximum radius of 51 m. As well as being able to handle containers alongside vessels up to post-Panamax size, this universally applicable, diesel-electric MHC will also be moving general and project cargo including components for wind turbines.The new crane will be shipped from Gottwald’s Düsseldorf facility at the end of this month and will enter service in September 2009, bringing to six the total number of cranes ordered by Grupo CICE from Gottwald, a list which includes a Generation 5, G HMK 7608 Mobile Harbour Crane, a variant of Model 7 with a maximum lifting capacity of 140 tonnes, which has been in operation since 2007.
R v Horncastle; R v Marquis  All ER (D) 88 (Dec) applied; Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom (Applications 26766/05 and 22228/06)  All ER (D) 132 (Jan) considered. D Cooper (instructed by Julian Young & Co) for the claimant; A J Jackson (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown. R v Ibrahim: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Lord Justice Aikens, Mr Justice Field and Judge Nicholas Cooke QC): 27 April 2012 In August 2006, the defendant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for a number of rapes in the Birmingham area. The first two counts on the indictment arose out of the same circumstances, which had taken place in March 2003. It was alleged that the appellant had raped a prostitute, W (count 1). W made a central statement in which, inter alia, she claimed to have shouted ‘rape’ after being attacked. That was confirmed by the statement of a witness, T, who lived nearby and had heard W. Otherwise, W’s account was not directly supported. W died in 2006, before the trial. Her statement was admitted at trial. At the close of the prosecution case, the defendant submitted that the judge should either withdraw counts 1 and 2 from the jury or should direct the jury to acquit the defendant on those counts pursuant to section 125(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 act). The judge rejected the submissions and decided that, in relation to counts 1 and 2, those were matters for the jury to decide. The defendant was found guilty. He appealed. The defendant contended that the admission of the three hearsay statements of W pursuant to section 116(2)(a) of the 2003 Act had caused the trial to be unfair and contrary to his rights in article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He submitted, inter alia, that first, the judge should have excluded the three statements pursuant to section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Secondly, he submitted that at the latest by the conclusion of all the evidence in the case the judge should have stopped the case and directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty in relation to count 1, pursuant to section 125 of the 2003 act. Thirdly, he submitted the judge had failed to adequately direct the jury on the dangers of relying on hearsay evidence. Consideration was given to R v Horncastle  All ER (D) 88 (Dec) (Horncastle) and the cases of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v the United Kingdom  ECHR 2127 (Al-Khawaja). The court ruled: (1) The clear effect of the judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in Horncastle and Al-Khawaja was that it was a precondition that the untested hearsay evidence be shown to be potentially safely reliable before it could be admitted. That was a matter for the judge to rule on, either at the admission stage or after the close of the prosecution case pursuant to section 125 of the 2003 act (see  of the judgment). The question in the instant case was whether, on the central issue of whether the defendant had had non-consentual sexual intercourse with W on the evening in question, her principal statement could be shown to be reliable. It could not be considered as such. Had counsel for the defendant possessed the benefit of the judgments in Horncastle and Al-Khawaja, he would have been bound to make a submission that even though W’s hearsay statements satisfied the conditions in sections 116(1) and (2)(a) of the 2003 act, the court ought to have exercised its power to exclude them under section 78 of PACE (see - of the judgment). The question of reliability and the credibility of W’s evidence ought not to have been left to the jury (see  of the judgment). R v Horncastle; R v Marquis  All ER (D) 88 (Dec) applied; Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom (Applications 26766/05 and 22228/06)  All ER (D) 132 (Jan) considered. (2) If an untested hearsay statement was not shown to be reliable and it was a statement that was part of the central corpus of evidence without which the case on the relevant count could not proceed, the effect of the decisions in Horncastle and Al-Khawaja was that the statement was almost bound to be ‘unconvincing’ such that a conviction based on it would be unsafe. Under section 125 of the 2003 act, given the case law, the judge was duty bound to make his assessment of reliability and importance of the hearsay evidence that had been admitted, before making his decision on whether to let the case proceed or not (see ,  of the judgment). In the instant case, if the court was incorrect in respect of issue one, the trial judge ought to have acceded to the defence submission made pursuant to section 125 of the 2003 act. In any event, the judge had erred in stating that the evaluation of W’s untested hearsay evidence was a matter for the jury. Under section 125(1)(a), the judge had had a duty to decide whether the case in count 1 was based wholly or partly on W’s statements. It had plainly been based on the statements. Secondly, under section 125(1)(b) the judge had then to decide whether the evidence was so unconvincing that, considering its importance to the case against the defendant on count 1, his conviction of the offence would be unsafe (see  of the judgment). The principal statement of W, untested hearsay that it was, was sufficiently unconvincing that, considering its importance to the case against the defendant on count 1, his conviction on that count would be unsafe (see  of the judgment). (3) It was established practice that a jury be reminded that a hearsay statement admitted under chapter 2 of part 11 of the 2003 act would not usually have been verified on oath and would not have been tested by cross-examination. The judge had to identify and point out the specific risks of relying on that evidence and ought to invite the jury to scrutinise it with particular care. The jury’s attention in particular needed to be drawn to the context in which the statement had been made and to all the other evidence in relation to it. If there were discrepancies between the hearsay statement and the evidence of other witnesses the jury’s attention had to be drawn specifically to them (see  of the judgment). On the evidence, the judge had not invited the jury to scrutinise the evidence in the hearsay statements with particular care. He had not pointed out specifically the risks of relying on untested hearsay statements which were central to the prosecution case on count 1. In all the above respects, the ‘counterbalancing measures’ in chapter 2 of part 11 of the 2003 act and in the common law had not been properly applied in the instant case. The defendant had not received a fair trial and his rights under article 6(1) of the Convention had been infringed (see ,  of the judgment). The appeal would be allowed and the conviction on count 1 would be quashed (see  of the judgment). Hearsay – Document – Whether conviction on count 1 unsafe
Firms covered by collapsed insurer Enterprise have less than three weeks to find an alternative provider.In an update published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, it was confirmed around 50 firms have professional indemnity insurance with Gibraltar-based Enterprise Insurance.The Gibraltar Financial Services Commission last month ordered the unrated insurer to stop writing any new business after it was declared insolvent and entered liquidation.Law firms with a potential claim based upon current, prior or run-off policy cover have been advised to notify Enterprise ‘as a matter of priority’.It has also been confirmed firms in practice with a current policy have until 22 August to find replacement cover.The SRA has contacted all firms insured by Enterprise to advise on their next steps and will provide ‘dedicated support’ during this process.‘Firms that might be affected might want to contact their brokers to discuss any open claims, or other relevant issues,’ said the SRA.‘Firms should continue to notify Enterprise or their broker of any new claims received against their existing policy until such time as replacement cover is in place, and these claims will also be managed by the liquidator.’Although just 50 law firms have current cover with Enterprise, the insurer has been in the PII market since 2011 and is believed to provide run-off cover for many more practices that have since closed down.The UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) has confirmed that if it establishes Enterprise cannot meet the cost of claims made against it, it will protect UK policyholders if they meet certain eligibility criteria.For example, this applies to UK policyholders who are individuals or small businesses with a turnover of less than £1m and who have professional indemnity insurance.Frederick White of Grant Thornton has been appointed as liquidator of Enterprise. He said last week that insurance policies issued by Enterprise have not been cancelled or disclaimed, but that he was currently unable to pay any claims arising under such policies.Grant Thornton said it was also ‘uncertain’ if the company’s assets would be sufficient to meet insurance claims in full.
A second unregulated entity has emerged as being allowed to employ solicitors to sell legal services. Online legal business Rocket Lawyer confirmed to the Gazette that it received a waiver last year for its solicitors to provide services to customers in England and Wales. The company has long been regarded as at the forefront of the changing legal market in the UK, after starting in the USA. It creates digital legal documents and assigns work to a panel of dozens of lawyers when the work is too complex to handle online. Rocket Lawyer has taken advantage of the Solicitors Regulation Authority granting a so-called ‘safe space’ for legal businesses to innovate. Permitting an unregulated firm to employ regulated solicitors is controversial as a scheme, which was subject to consultation last year, and is not likely to be written into SRA rules until next year. Mark Edwards, Rocket LawyerMark Edwards, vice president and general manager of Rocket Lawyer UK, said customers who wanted more than automated contracts could previously either consult a Rocket Lawyer paralegal or an on-call lawyer from the network. ‘Now with the waiver we have a middle option: Rocket Lawyer solicitors can provide legal advice for the more standard legal issues,’ he said. ‘This will allow us to provide a better customer experience and to bring the price down, to some extent, so that we can further fulfil on our mission to make the law affordable and simple.’ Edwards said the company intends to hire half a dozen solicitors and consultants this year to help small business customers with commercial issues such as shareholder agreements, terms & conditions, service agreements and data protection compliance. The SRA waiver policy is not new but the commitment to increasing its scope was made clear earlier this year. The regulator has said it will publish waivers to make sure the process is fair and transparent and will compile an annual innovation report to make sure decisions are being made consistently. But the SRA appears not to be willing to publish details of each waiver, without the permission of the applicant. It insists the ‘safe space’ was intended to be for all potential applicants, be they existing firms or new entrants to the market. It had been assumed in some quarters the policy was supposed to be for existing firms to help them compete with those coming into the sector. The policy of allowing solicitors to provide legal services through unregulated providers has been opposed by the Law Society, which has questioned what redress and protection is available to consumers and what information they are being told about the status of the provider.
UK: Construction of a further section of the planned High Speed 2 route to Manchester is to be brought forward, with the Crewe – Birmingham link now expected to open in 2027, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced on November 30. This is six years ahead of the original schedule for Phase II, which would see the routes from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds completed in 2033.Pointing out the ‘excellent connectivity which already exists at Crewe’, Osborne said that bringing forward Phase IIa would support economic development and job creation under the government’s Northern Powerhouse strategy. Phase IIa would run from a connection with Phase I at Fradley (near the Handsacre junction with the West Coast Main Line) to a new hub station at Crewe.Details of the preferred alignment are set out in a Command Paper issued by Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin, along with the related land acquisition and compensation proposals. With the hybrid bill seeking powers to build Phase I now being debated in Parliament, he said the government would prepare a separate bill to cover Phase IIa.HS2 Ltd Chairman Sir David Higgins had recommended in October 2014 that construction of the Birmingham – Crewe leg should be brought forward. He welcomed the decision, which he said would ‘bring the capacity, connectivity and regeneration benefits of HS2 to the Northwest and Scotland years earlier than originally planned.’ Completion of phases I and IIa is expected to reduce London – Crewe journey times by 35 min, London – Manchester by 40 min and London – Glasgow by 48 min.The Chancellor emphasised that the government remained committed to completing the full ‘Y-shaped’ network serving Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, for which he had announced a total budget of £55·7bn in the Comprehensive Spending Review on November 25.McLoughlin confirmed that ‘we continue to make good progress on our plans for the rest of HS2 Phase II, and will make a decision on the route in autumn 2016’. The command paper sets out the government thinking on the remainder of Phase II, including station and depot locations, as well as closer integration with the existing rail network and the proposed Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme. The Transport Secretary emphasised that ‘HS2 will not be a separate, standalone railway. It will be a key part of our national rail network, and wider transport infrastructure.’As part of the planning process, Higgins issued on November 30 his ‘Yorkshire Hub’ report setting out recommendations for developing a single station in Leeds which would better integrate HS2 with existing rail services. He said it had been ‘very gratifying to see a consensus grow among the city regions in the East Midlands and Yorkshire on the siting of future hub stations at Toton and Leeds.’
Super Eagles’ forward, Kelechi Iheanacho, has apologized for his reaction after he was substituted by head coach, Gernot Rohr, during their 2-0 defeat to South Africa in a 2019 Africa Cup of Nations qualifier last Saturday.The Manchester City man endured a miserable afternoon at the Godswill Akpabio Stadium, before he was replaced by Kayode Olanrewaju in the 70th minute.Iheanacho also promised to perform better in the Eagles’ upcoming matches.“Of course, we are not going to be happy and Nigerians are not happy as well that we lost,” Iheanacho told media on Monday. “We are not happy especially when we lost on our home ground. I’m sad already that we lost such an important game.“I wish to apologise too for the way I reacted when I was substituted. I did it for myself because as a striker I should have at least got at least shot on target.“Unfortunately, I couldn’t do that. That’s why I was angry with myself. I wish to apologise to the manager, the coach and the Nigeria Football Federation for my action. That’s not me. “For our next game, I believe we will come back stronger and better against Cameroon. I will improve my performance.”