Daily Postcard: The change of color spotted today on the cherry tree in White Rock marks the start of the fall foliage. This is the last day of summer and with the autumnal equinox a debate erupts around this time each year — and it’s not about where to sip the best apple cider or peep the finest fall foliage. It’s over the exact start date of the fall equinox, which marks the beginning of autumn. Specifically, the 2019 equinox will begin at 3:50 a.m Eastern Standard Time on Sept. 23, when at that precise moment, the sun will be directly in line with the equator. Photo by Nancy Ann Hibbs
This morning the industrial REIT emerged as a prospective suitor by responding to Brixton’s earlier announcement that it was in discussion with parties.Segro stated that it was considering making an offer in the form of shares.It said: ‘Segro notes the announcement by Brixton earlier today and confirms that it has made a preliminary approach to the board of Brixton with a view to entering into discussions about a possible offer for Brixton. ‘Segro currently envisages that the consideration for any offer will be in the form of Segro shares. Segro would like to emphasize that there can be no certainty that an offer for Brixton will be forthcoming.’ Segro was the fourth REIT to raise new equity early when it carried out a £500m rights issue in March.In contrast, Brixton has not launched any type of equity raising, and is in need of at least £250m new equity combined with asset sales to prevent it from breaching the loan covenants on its debt pile when its portfolio is re-valued on 30 June – a date described by JP Morgan this morning as ‘D-Day’.Nomura, Brixton’s financial advisor, said earlier this month that there was ‘value in the business’.Segro shares rose 1% to 25p in the wake of the announcement, while Brixton’s increased 20% to 60p.
Subscribe 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.
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
SgurrEnergy, a UK-based renewable energy consultancy, has become a member of Ocean Energy Europe.As part of this membership, SgurrEnergy will use its sector expertise to feed into a number of policy and steering documents, as well as having valuable input into research groups, SgurrEnergy’s press release reads.SgurrEnergy’s commitment to the advancement of the wave and tidal sector ranges from academic collaboration with the University of Edinburgh on a three-year research project to market reviews, health and safety support and design services.Ocean Energy Europe is a Brussels-based industry group representing the renewable ocean energy sector in Europe. The association acts as the main link between Europe’s ocean energy industry and the EU institutions, and EU Member States.[mappress mapid=”801″]
Per curiam: ‘We can, therefore, draw the following conclusions from Norris: (1) There may be a closer analogy between extradition and the domestic criminal process than between extradition and deportation or expulsion, but the court has still to examine carefully the way in which it will interfere with family life. (2) There is no test of exceptionality in either context. (3) The question is always whether the interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and other members of his family is outweighed by the public interest in extradition. (4) There is a constant and weighty public interest in extradition: that people accused of crimes should be brought to trial; that people convicted of crimes should serve their sentences; that the UK should honour its treaty obligations to other countries; and there should be no “safe havens” to which either can flee in the belief that they will not be sent back. (5) That public interest will always carry great weight, but the weight to be attached to it in the particular case does vary according to the nature and seriousness of the crime or crimes involved. (6) The delay since the crimes were committed may both diminish the weight to be attached to the public interest and increase the impact upon private and family life. (7) Hence it is likely that the public interest in extradition will outweigh the article 8 rights of the family unless the consequences of the interference with family life will be exceptionally severe’ (per Lady Hale at  of the judgment). HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa; PH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa; F-K (FC) v Polish Judicial Authority: SC (Justices of the Supreme Court, Lords Hope (deputy president), Mance, Judge, Kerr, Wilson, Brown, Lady Hale): 20 June 2012 Alun Jones QC and John Jones (instructed by Wainwright & Cummins) for HH; Matthew Ryder QC, Steven Powles and Michelle Butler (instructed by Wainwright & Cummins) for PH; Edward Fitzgerald QC and Ben Cooper (instructed by GT Stewart Solicitors) for FK; David Perry QC and Ben Lloyd (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the judicial authorities; Hugo Keith QC and Caoilfhionn Gallagher (instructed by Maxwell Gillott Solicitors) for the children in the first case, intervening parties by the Official Solicitor, their litigation friend; Alex Bailin QC, Mark Summers and Aaron Watkins (instructed by Peters & Peters Solicitors) for Justice as intervening party; Manjit Gill QC and James Dixon (instructed by Coram Children’s Legal Centre) for the Coram Children’s Legal Centre as intervening party. Extradition hearing – European Arrest Warrant – Defendants’ extradition sought by relevant judicial authority pursuant to European Arrest Warrant Per curiam: ‘[In ZH] I pointed out that “despite the looseness with which these terms are sometimes used, ‘a primary consideration’ is not the same as ‘the primary consideration’, still less as ‘the paramount consideration’”… Where the decision directly affects the child’s upbringing, such as the decision to separate a child from her parents, then the child’s best interests are the paramount, or determinative, consideration. Where the decision affects the child more indirectly, such as the decision to separate one of the parents from the child, for example by detention or deportation, then the child’s interests are a primary, but not the paramount, consideration’ (per Lady Hale, at  of the judgment). Per curiam: ‘ZH (Tanzania) was not concerned with and did not address extradition. Neither the decision in Norris, nor the judgment of Lord Phillips, nor those of any other members of the court, nor the decisions relating to extradition from the European Court of Human Rights, nor indeed the structure of the act itself, were cited or addressed, nor was it suggested that in the context of extradition proceedings the principles identified in Norris were subject to any further amplification or modification. It seems improbable that, without doing so expressly and unequivocally, the court in ZH (Tanzania) intended to or would have modified the way in which Norris had stated that the article 8 rights of the family of a proposed extraditee should be approached (per Lord Judge at  of the judgment). Per curiam: ‘In the field of extradition, as in every other context, therefore, the importance of the rights of the particular children affected falls to be considered first. This does not impair or reduce the weight that will be accorded to the need to preserve and uphold a comprehensive charter for extradition’ (per Lord Kerr at  of the judgment). Per curiam: ‘In answering that question [whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the convention rights], the court would be well advised to adopt the same structured approach to an article 8 case as would be applied by the Strasbourg court. First, it asks whether there is or will be an interference with the right to respect for private and family life. Second, it asks whether that interference is in accordance with the law and pursues one or more of the legitimate aims within those listed in article 8.2. Third, it asks whether the interference is “necessary in a democratic society” in the sense of being a proportionate response to that legitimate aim. In answering that all-important question it will weigh the nature and gravity of the interference against the importance of the aims pursued’ (per Lady Hale at  of the judgment). Per curiam: ‘It follows that an extradition order for one or both parents may be appropriate when deportation or removal would not. In other words, because distinct issues are involved, the same facts, involving the same interest of and the same potential or likely damage to the child or children, may produce a different outcome when the court is deciding whether to remove foreign citizens from this country or extraditing convicted or suspected criminals (including citizens of this country) to serve their sentences or stand trial for crimes committed abroad’ (per Lord Mance at  of the judgment). Decision of the Divisional Court  All ER (D) 86 (May) affirmed. Decision of Ouseley J  All ER (D) 81 (Jan) reversed. The two joined cases under the Extradition Act 2003 involved the defendant parents of young children.In the first case, the appellants were arrested in Italy and prosecuted on eight charges relating to the importation of cannabis into that country from Morocco on various dates earlier that year. After a month, the mother (HH) was released under house arrest. She fled the country in breach of her conditions of bail. The father (PH) spent a year in custody before being conditionally discharged, whereupon he also fled in breach of his bail. They were later convicted in their absence of all charges. the Italian judicial authority issued European Arrest Warrants (warrants) in respect of both HH and PH. HH’s warrant stated that she had about nine and a half years of her prison sentence to serve. PH’s warrant stated that he had about eight years to serve, although there was evidence that, as he had become primary carer for the children because of HH’s health problems, if the family were living in Italy he would be allowed to serve all but a few months of that at home. HH and PH were arrested in the UK and appeared at an extradition hearing. There was expert evidence of the serious harm which would be suffered by the children if both parents were extradited. The district judge ordered extradition of both parents. Their appeals were dismissed by the Divisional Court and they appealed to the Supreme Court. In the second case, the Polish judicial authority issued two warrants in respect of the appellant (FK), a mother of five children aged 21, 17, 13, 8 and 3, who was accused of offences of dishonesty. The parents were both Polish nationals who had been living in the UK since 2002, after the alleged offences were committed, and who had been granted permanent residency before the instant proceedings were begun. The first warrant was issued in 2006 in respect of an offence allegedly committed in 2001. The second warrant was issued in 2007 in respect of three offences allegedly committed between 1997 and 2000. The total sums involved were less than £7,000. FK was arrested in the UK and appeared before an extradition hearing. There was expert evidence of the serious harm which would be suffered, in particular by the two youngest children, if FK was extradited. The children had reacted badly to her arrest in 2010. The district judge found, inter alia, that she had fled Poland to avoid prosecution. The father was physically impaired and was found to display signs of psychological disturbance. The senior district judge ordered her extradition. Her appeal was dismissed by the Administrative Court; she appealed to the Supreme Court. All the appellants submitted that insufficient consideration had been given to the interests of the children’s rights pursuant to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The issue for determination was, in proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003, where the rights of children of appellants were engaged pursuant to article 8 of the convention, how to safeguard those interests and to what extent, if at all, it was necessary to modify the approach of the Supreme Court as stated in Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2)  All ER (D) 256 (Feb) in light of ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  All ER (D) 02 (Feb). It was suggested that ZH had the effect of requiring that the rights of the child be the primary consideration for the court. Consideration was given to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union. The court ruled: (1) Under Norris, the question was whether the interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and other members of his family was outweighed by the public interests in extradition. ZH emphasised the importance of any relevant child’s interests as a primary consideration. However, those authorities did not state that the interests of the child were the only consideration. It could be outweighed by the cumulative effect of other considerations. When rights under article 8 of the convention were properly examined in the extradition context, the proportionality assessment would be overwhelmingly likely to be resolved in favour of extradition (see , , , , , , , , , ,  and  of the judgment). (2) (Lady Hale dissenting in part) In the first case, the extradition of both parents would have a severe impact on the children. However, having regard to the limited role of the HH in the children’s lives and the central part she had played in the very serious offences committed, the interference with the rights of the children was outweighed by the public interest in her extradition. Given the nature of the crimes committed by PH and his having broken his bail conditions almost immediately, the public interest in extradition outweighed the interference with the rights of his children. It followed that the appeals in the first case would be dismissed (see -, , -, , , - of the judgment). (3) In the second case, the delay in prosecuting the offences and seeking the warrants had been considerable. There had been delay between the offences themselves and the bringing of the Polish prosecutions; even further delay between the issue of the domestic arrest warrants and the requests for the warrants; and again between the issue of the warrants and FK’s arrest. While the district judge had found that FK had fled Poland to avoid prosecution, and thus was not entitled to rely upon passage of time as a bar for the purpose of section 14 of the 2003 act, the overall length of the delay was relevant to the question under article 8 of the convention. During that lapse of time she and her family had made a new, useful and blameless life for themselves in the UK. Two more children had been born. The parents had not had any reason to believe that the Polish authorities were seeking the mother’s return. The public interest importance of maintaining a comprehensive system of extradition would not suffer a significant impairment if FK’s surrender to the Polish authorities was not ordered. By contrast, the adverse impact on her family and, particularly its younger members, was likely to be profound and irretrievable. In all the circumstances, the public interest in returning FK to face trial and sentence upon the charges in the two warrants was not such as to justify the inevitable severe harm to the interests of the two youngest children in doing so. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed (see -, , , , ,  of the judgment). Per curiam: ‘Under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the ultimate substantive issue, where a right to respect for family life is engaged, is whether there exist factor(s) within article 8(2) outweighing that right. It is likely to be helpful at some point to address the issue specifically in those terms. But I do not think that any particular starting point or order can or should be imposed in the way in which courts address such an issue in the context of extradition’ (per Lord Mance at  of the judgment).
Mehrunnisa Lalani, director of inclusion, Solicitors Regulation Authority I was disappointed at the approach taken in your article of 21 September entitled ‘SRA planning surprise diversity swoops’ on our latest thematic supervision pilot on equality and diversity compliance. The headline and initial paragraphs containing reference to ‘surprise diversity swoops’ and ‘unannounced’ visits are inaccurate and misleading. The thematic pilot is being carried out through a series of a pre-arranged visits and therefore we will be seeking the co-operation of those firms we will be visiting. The article also suggests that this has only been a recent announcement, when in fact we have publicly said on more than one occasion that we would be carrying out this work. We see this operation very much as a two-way discussion exercise with firms where we can identify key issues and areas of good practice to share.
BRAZIL: French engineering firm Systra has acquired Brazilian consultancy and engineering company Tectran Tectran is headquartered in Belo Horizonte and employs 80 people. The company works in metro, rail and road infrastructure engineering, urban planning and logistics studies. The two companies have worked together since 2013 on passenger rail projects in the Belo Horizonte region through Systra’s Brazilian subsidiary. ‘This acquisition reinforces Systra’s presence in a country with considerable transport infrastructure needs’, said Systra CEO Pierre Verzat. ‘From our role as a benchmark in engineering services, we are able to anticipate the recovery of Brazil’s economy, which we expect to occur in the coming years, accompanied by growing transport needs for a young and dynamic population.’
Downtown St. John’s Antigua On Sunday November 1, Antigua & Barbuda celebrated 34 years of Independence.The islands became an independent state within the Commonwealth of Nations in 1981, with Elizabeth II as the first Queen of Antigua and Barbuda. In commemoration of their independence, it is only right that the we here at the National Weekly explore the twin island’s most rated tourist destinations.Half Moon Bay, AntiguaAt the southeastern end of Antigua, tranquil Half Moon Bay is fringed by one of Antigua’s best beaches. Protected by a reef, this idyllic crescent of fine white sand and azure sea, backed by natural foliage, offers excellent snorkeling on calm days. When the wind is up, the surf can be rough. A small restaurant serves snacks just off the beach. St. John’s, Antigua St John’s, the capital city and cruise ship port of Antigua and Barbuda, is a kaleidoscope of candy-hued colonial cottages and market stalls piled high with tropical fruits and flowers. Looming above the skyline are the white neo-Baroque towers of St. John’s Cathedral, one of the city’s major attractions.For an overview of the island’s history, many first-time visitors head to the Museum of Antigua and Barbuda in the 18th century former Court House. Shopping is also excellent in St. John’s. Duty-free shops abound at Heritage Quay, souvenir stalls beckon from touristy Redcliffe Quay, and the lively harborside public markets are the place to be on Fridays and Saturdays.Museum of Antigua and Barbuda The Museum of Antigua and Barbuda traces the history of these islands from their geological origins to political independence in 1981. Housed in the museum is a full-scale replica of an Arawak dwelling, as well as portraits of Sir Joshua Reynolds, King George III, and Queen Caroline. The museum is located in the former 18th-century Courthouse in St John’s.Dockyard National Park, AntiguaOne of Antigua’s most popular attractions, Nelson’s Dockyard National Park, in English Harbour, is home to Antigua’s former 18th-century British Naval Dockyard as well as restored historic buildings and some of the island’s best nature trails. The restored marina with beautiful old stone warehouses encompasses hotels, restaurants, shops, galleries, and museums.Both the Admiral’s House Museum and Dockyard Museum trace the site’s history from the 17th century to the present. After touring the Dockyard, visitors can enjoy panoramic island views from the ruins of Fort Shirley, perched on the hilltop at Shirley Heights, or Fort Berkeley, at the west entrance to the harbor. The park is also home to 18th century Clarence House, originally built for the future King William IV, as well as the Dow’s Hill Interpretation Centre, along the Lookout Trail near Shirley Heights. Fig Tree DriveAlong Antigua’s southern coast, Fig Tree Drive winds through rainforest, farmlands, and fishing villages. This picturesque drive offers a glimpse of local life. Banana trees (called “figs” by the locals), mango trees, and coconut palms dot the landscape, as well as the ruins of sugar mills. Look for the roadside stands selling fresh-picked fruit. Along the route, the Fig Tree Studio Art Gallery sells vibrant local art and zipline rainforest tours are nearby.
Egypt records 627 new COVID-19 cases, total infections near 90,000 Egypt records 1,497 new COVID-19 infections Egyptians wearing face masks against Covid-19 queue up to vote on August 11, 2020 for a new senate in an upper house election. Khaled Desouki | AFP Egyptians wearing face masks against Covid-19 queue up to vote on August 11, 2020 for a new senate in an upper house election. Khaled Desouki | AFPEgypt recorded on Saturday 130 new COVID-19 cases, raising the total infections in the country to 99,712, the Egyptian Health Ministry said in a statement.According to the statement, 16 patients died from the novel coronavirus in the past 24 hours, taking the total deaths to 5,551.Meanwhile, 903 others were cured and discharged from hospitals on Saturday, bringing the total recoveries to 77,208, the statement added.Egypt announced its first confirmed COVID-19 case on Feb. 14 and the first death from the highly infectious virus on March 8.Amid declining COVID-19 deaths and fatalities, the most populous Arab country has been easing relevant restrictions over the past couple of months as part of a coexistence plan to maintain anti-coronavirus precautionary measures while resuming economic activities.Egypt and China have been working together on fighting the pandemic through exchanging medical aid and expertise.In early February, Egypt provided aid to China to help its fight against COVID-19 and China later sent three batches of medical aid to the North African country.Related Egypt confirms 931 new COVID-19 infections, 83,001 in total