Search

Why Richard Gere is set to testify in Italian kidnapping trial

Actor Richard Gere has been named as a witness in a high-profile Italian kidnapping trial involving former government minister Matteo Salvini. Salvini, the populist leader of the right-wing League Party, is facing kidnapping charges for refusing to let a migrant ship dock in the country. If convicted, he faces up to 15 years in jail and being barred from running for office. Gere was in Italy in August 2019, when Salvini refused for days to let a boat carrying about 150 migrants rescued at sea to dock in Italy. The vessel was operated by the NGO Proactiva Open Arms, and Gere visited the boat in an effort to draw international attention to the situation. Activists described the conditions on board and the Italian government’s failure to act as a humanitarian crisis at the time. Salvini has said that the inclusion of Gere in the list of witnesses proves the case against him should not be taken seriously. "Now you tell me how serious is a trial where Richard Gere comes from Hollywood to testify on how bad I am," Mr Salvini said. Other witnesses include former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, as well as other senior Italian political figures. Proactiva Open Arms told the court that Gere could give a direct account of the conditions on board the vessel, which was stranded off the Italian island of Lampedusa for 19 days before prosecutors ordered its evacuation. At present, it is not clear whether Gere will appear in person or via video. Salvini, a populist known for his anti-immigrant campaigns, argues that he was simply doing his duty as minister by refusing to allow the migrants to disembark. He said, "Defending a country's borders, security, honour and dignity is not just a minister's duty but everyone's duty. "Being put on trial for just doing my duty is surreal. A Spanish boat refusing to go to Spain commits an abuse. If Spain gives its flag to boats it does not manage to control, then there is a problem". The next hearing is scheduled for December 17. Image: Michael Loccisano/WireImage/Getty Images

Legal

Can I be forced to testify against my family?

Receiving a subpoena to appear as a witness in court can be daunting. The experience can be even more stressful if you are called to testify against your loved-one. But there are laws that restrict the prosecution’s ability to force family members to testify. Under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s18.html">section 18 of the Evidence Act</a>, a witness may object to giving evidence altogether, or to giving evidence of a communication between themselves and the defendant, if: <ul> <li>They are a <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/resources/represent-yourself-in-court/">called by the prosecution as a witness</a>, and</li> <li>The defendant is their spouse, de facto partner, child or parent, and</li> <li>There is likely to be harm caused to their relationship with the defendant</li> </ul> The section recognises that forcing family members to testify against one another can harm the family unit, and that harming the family unit is undesirable. However, the protection does not apply in all situations. Rather, the court can force a family member to give evidence if the nature and extent of the harm caused is outweighed by the desirability of having the evidence given. In making that assessment, the court will consider factors such as: <ul> <li>The nature and gravity of the offence;</li> <li>The nature of evidence that the person might produce;</li> <li>The weight that such evidence is likely to be given;</li> <li>Whether there is another source of the evidence that is likely to be given;</li> <li>The nature of the relationship between the defendant and the person; and</li> <li>Whether the person would be disclosing a matter received in confidence from the defendant.</li> </ul> In order to take advantage of the section, a witness must object before they give evidence or as soon as practicable thereafter. What about spousal privilege? Spousal privilege is a principle that says that a husband and wife cannot not be compelled to testify against each other. One of the historical justifications for the privilege was that the law considered the interests of a husband and wife to be one and the same. Another justification was that the law should not interfere with the most sacred and holy of unions – the institution of marriage. Spousal privilege existed in legal jurisprudence for hundreds of years, but in 2011 the High Court found that it is not actually an enforceable rule. The High Court case In 2009, <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/47.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=stoddart%202011">Ewan Stoddart was summonsed to appear before the Australian Crime Commission</a> after being investigated for tax fraud. His wife was also summonsed to answer the Commission’s questions, but refused to answer on grounds of spousal privilege. The Federal Court found in favour of Mrs Stoddart, but the High Court appeal went the other way. The High Court found that spousal privilege is not a valid excuse for refusing to give evidence in court. It found that all family members must rely on statutory exemptions even though they may not offer the same level of protection as common law privileges. So whether you are a spouse or another family member, the court must take into account the list of factors contained in legislation before deciding whether or not to force you to testify against your loved-one. Written by Ugur Nedim. Republished with permission of <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/can-i-be-forced-to-testify-against-my-family/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</a>

Caring

Thomas Markle could be called on to testify against Meghan

<div class="body_text "> Estranged father Thomas Markle could be called on to testify at the high court against his daughter Meghan as part of her ongoing legal action against the Mail on Sunday. Reports have emerged suggesting that the paper’s defence is reliant on Thomas’ account. The Duchess of Sussex is currently suing the newspaper for breach of copyright, invasion of privacy and misuse of personal data after it published excerpts from a letter that she sent to Thomas about how he was treating her. Mail on Sunday filed its 44-page long defence at the high court on Tuesday arguing that the Duchess and other royals rely on publicity about themselves and their lives to maintain the privileged positions they hold”. It also argues that Meghan could not “have a reasonable expectation of privacy that the contents of the letter were private and would remain so”. “There is a huge and legitimate public interest in the royal family and the activities, conduct and standards of behavior of its members,” the filing said. “This extends not merely to their public conduct, but to their personal and family relationships because those are integral to the proper functioning of the monarchy.” The paper is targeting all of Meghan’s claims, including where she says that she had not courted publicity for her relationship with her father. The paper has countered this saying that Meghan hasn’t denied authorising her friends to speak about the relationship for an article with US magazine <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-markle-letter-after-wedding/" target="_blank">People</a>. Mail on Sunday has dismissed the copyright claim by arguing that the letter was not an original literary work while also saying that Meghan and her team “briefed” the media against Thomas to obtain favourable coverage. "The privacy allegation, which is being made by Meghan in this particular case, is that there was also an invasion of her privacy by the revelation of this letter and the information about their personal relationship," media lawyer Mark Stephens told the <a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51109538" target="_blank">BBC</a>. "Effectively, Thomas Markle and therefore the Mail on Sunday's defence is that because it is alleged Meghan and her team were out briefing against Thomas Markle — he had a right of reply, he had a right to defend himself, he had a right to put the record straight and it's much less clear that she wins that cleanly or at all". The legal proceedings are being funded by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex privately and any proceeds will be donated to an anti-bullying charity. </div>

Family & Pets

Ashton Kutcher set to testify in serial killer trial

Movie and TV star Ashton Kutcher could help put away an alleged serial killer accused of brutally murdering 10 women, including the actor’s girlfriend, Ashley Ellerin. The trial of accused murderer Michael Gargiulo will begin in Los Angeles this week and Kutcher has been called upon as one of the witnesses to take the stand. Kutcher will be recalling the night in 2001 when his then-girlfriend was stabbed to death in her home in the Hollywood Hills. In 2001, Kutcher was at the height of Dude, Where’s My Car? fame when he began dating Ellerin. Kutcher and Ellerin had plans to meet up later after he attended a party at a friend’s house to watch the Grammys. After the show was finished, Kutcher tried to call Ellerin twice, according to the statement he gave police. Kutcher had figured she was annoyed he didn’t invite her to his friend’s party, and he drove to her house to make peace. However, when he knocked on the door, there was no answer. All the lights were on in the house and his girlfriend’s car was in the driveway, so Kutcher peered in the window. He thought he saw red wine on the floor, so he assumed she had some drinks and gone to bed. Kutcher proceeded to go home. However, the next day, it was discovered that it was blood and not red wine. Ellerin had been stabbed 47 times and her body had been laying slumped out of view, left posed in a sexually suggestive position. Her killing was violent, brutal and, according to the coroner’s report, she had been stabbed so many times she was almost decapitated. Her flatmate found her the next morning. Gargiulo immediately became a suspect after Ellerin’s friends told police he had become obsessed with her when he moved in nearby. Ellerin had invited him to a few parties that were held within the house, despite her friends expressing their concern that he was fixated on her. It has been 20 years since her passing, and friends and family of Ellerin and the other victims are desperately hoping for justice. They want to see Gargiulo convicted and sentenced to a life behind bars. The trial begins on May 2 at the Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles.

Movies

Lisa Marie Presley to testify against estranged husband in bitter divorce case

Lisa Marie Presley will testify against her estranged husband when their bitter divorce trial goes to court on Monday. Presley split with musician Michael Lockwood in 2016 after 10 years of marriage. They share nine-year-old twin daughters, Finley and Harper. She says that her estranged husband has been trying to claim a share of the inheritance left to her by her late father, rock 'n' roll legend Elvis Presley. According to legal documents, the 50-year-old is set to take the stand to testify that her husband had "assured her that he was not that guy" after she told him prior to their 2006 wedding that she "would not marry someone who would come after her for her money." Presley, once worth a staggering $87 million, asked Lockwood to sign a post-nup for peace of mind after their marriage. The post-nup was signed by both parties and stated that neither would pursue the other for support "at any time, regardless of the circumstances." "So much for assurances," Presley's attorney, Gary Fishbein, said of Lockwood, who is now contesting the post-nup with Presley. Lockwood, 57, is arguing the document be void because he was coerced into signing it, and his lawyer at the time, who has since died, failed to properly explain the terms of the agreement. "Lockwood cannot now complain that he's sorry he entered the agreement because he doesn't like the terms," said Fishbein. "He knew what he was signing, was represented and cannot invalidate the agreement because he has a case of sour grapes." In her count documents, Presley has claims that she is $22 million in debt, with $14 million owed in back in taxes. However, Lockwood refutes this, claiming Presley earns around $5.8 million every year, or $480,000 a month, thanks to a trust set up by her father. The trial is expected to last four days.

Legal

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information