Brian Cox A slew of stage stars were honored for their work on-screen at the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s 2020 Golden Globe Awards on January 5. Ricky Gervais hosted the event from The Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, CA. The ceremony was broadcast live on NBC. Among the winners was Tony nominee Michelle Williams (Blackbird) for her performance as Gwen Verdon in Fosse/Verdon, Brian Cox (The Great Society) for his turn on Succession and Tony-winning director Sam Mendes (The Ferryman) for helming 1917 (which also took home the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture, Drama). Reneé Zellweger earned a Golden Globe for her turn as stage-and-screen icon Judy Garland in Judy, the film based on Peter Quilter’s drama End of the Rainbow, which played Broadway in 2012.Also among the newly minted Golden Globe winners is Tony-winning songwriter Elton John (Aida, The Devil Wears Prada) for penning the song “I’m Gonna Love Me Again” (with longtime collaborator Bernie Taupin) from the biopic Rocketman. Taron Egerton also nabbed a Golden Globe for his turn as John.Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s acclaimed series Fleabag, which was adapted from a hit solo play, earned the Golden Globe for Best Television Series, Musical or Comedy, with Waller-Bridge also winning a Golden Globe for her performance in the series.Awkwafina, who will appear in the upcoming screen adaptation of the Tony-nominated musical The Prom, won a Golden Globe for her performance in The Farewell.For a full list of 2020 Golden Globe winners, click here. Michelle Williams View Comments Star Files Brian Cox Michelle Williams(Photos: Paul Drinkwater/NBCUniversal Media, LLC via Getty Images)
The appellants appealed against the imposition of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) following their pleas of guilty to supplying class A drugs including heroin and cocaine. The appellants had been tried under separate indictments for offending which was uncovered as part of the same police operation in the St Paul’s area of Bristol: Operation Polar. Each appellant had been caught selling drugs to undercover police officers on several occasions. Open drug dealing had a negative impact on the St Paul’s area which had resulted in a general decline of the area. Residents suffered fear, intimidation and nuisance as a result of the drug dealing. The judge imposed sentences of imprisonment and detention and similar post-conviction ASBOs on all four appellants preventing them, inter alia, from entering the Ashley ward of Bristol. The first appellant (B) submitted that his sentence of four years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive as insufficient account had been taken of his age, which was 18 at the date of the first offence. The appellants all appealed against their ASBOs on the basis that there was no need for an ASBO in light of the sentences passed, and it seemed to be police policy to apply for a standard ASBO for each offender caught up in Operation Polar without justifying them in the special circumstances of each appellant’s case. The appellants further argued that, if the ASBOs were upheld, the exclusion zone was too large. Held: (1) There was nothing wrong with a sentence of four years’ imprisonment in the circumstances of B’s case. R v Djahit (Turkesh)  2 Cr App R (S) 142 CA (Crim Div) established a starting point of 5-6 years for a street retailer of class A drugs, Djahit followed. Despite B’s age, he had previous convictions for possession of class A, class B and class C drugs, which indicated a lack of respect for the authority of the courts (see paragraph 17 of judgment). (2) The case of R v Dyer (Julio)  EWCA Crim 2096 was especially relevant as it was an appeal by an offender also caught up in Operation Polar against his ASBO which mirrored those imposed on the appellants. In that case it was open to the trial judge to decide that an ASBO was necessary and that the pre-conditions for the making of a post-conviction ASBO were met, Dyer followed (paragraph 21). The appellants’ challenge that the judge omitted to set out the factual basis for each appellant’s ASBO failed. The judge had vast background information before him of the circumstances of each appellant from which he could conclude that the statutory requirement of necessity for an ASBO was met in the case of each of the appellants. He considered the potential deterrent impact of the sentence. The post-conviction ASBOs were not simply directed at future drug offending, but also at their involvement in the antisocial behaviour associated with the open street dealing of drugs and their contribution to making St Paul’s a ‘no go’ area. The ASBOs were also targeted at the nuisance, fear and intimidation which were conducive and preparatory to open drug dealing. The ASBOs were justified in the case of each appellant. The appeals against the imposition of ASBOs were dismissed. However, the ASBOs were varied to reduce the exclusion area specified to the St Paul’s area (paragraphs 29, 33-34, 38). Appeals allowed in part. Criminal procedure – Antisocial behaviour orders – Sentence length – Supply of drugs R v (1) Kirk Jordan Barclay (2) Noah Ntuve (3) Francis Cowan (4) Trevor Junior Prince Campbell: CA (Crim Div) (Lord Justice Pitchford, Mr Justice Cranston, Judge Warwick McKinnon (Recorder of Croydon)): 1 February 2011 James Ward (instructed by CPS) for the Crown; David Miller (instructed by Allen Hoole) for the first and third appellants; Mark Worsley (instructed by Rodney King & Partners) for the second appellant; Ian Halliday (instructed by Elite) for the fourth appellant.
Author: Priyanka Ann Saini Petrobras announced yesterday that it has signed an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.The agreement, which is subject to approval by the court, is intended to resolve all pending and prospective claims by purchasers of Petrobras securities in the United States and by purchasers of Petrobras securities that are listed for trading in the United States. It eliminates the risk of an adverse judgment which, as Petrobras has previously reported, could have a material adverse effect on the company and its financial situation, and puts an end to the uncertainties, burdens and costs of protracted litigation.Under the proposed settlement, Petrobras has agreed to pay USD 2.95 billion to resolve claims in two installments of USD 983 million and a last installment of USD 984 million. The first installment will be paid within 10 days of preliminary approval of the settlement by the court. The second installment will be paid within 10 days of final approval of the settlement. The third installment will be paid by the later of (i) six months after final approval, or (ii) January 15, 2019. The total settlement amount will be recognised in the fourth quarter of 2017.The agreement does not constitute any admission of wrongdoing or misconduct by Petrobras. In the agreement, Petrobras expressly denies liability. This reflects its status as a victim of the acts uncovered by Operation Car Wash, as recognised by Brazilian authorities including the Brazilian Supreme Court. As a victim of the scheme, Petrobras has already recovered R$1.475 billion in restitution in Brazil and will continue to pursue all available legal remedies from culpable companies and individuals.The agreement is in the company’s best interest and that of its shareholders, given the risks of a verdict advised by a jury, particularities of US procedure and securities laws, as well its assessment of the status of the class action and the nature of such litigation in the United States, where only approximately 0.3% of securities-related class actions proceed to trial.The agreement will now be submitted to the district court in the SDNY for review. If preliminary approval is granted, the court will notify the members of the class of the terms of the proposed settlement. After considering any objections and a hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement, the court will decide whether to grant final approval.As a result of the agreement, the parties will ask the United States Supreme Court to defer consideration of Petrobras’s petition for a writ of certiorari, which was scheduled for January 5, 2018, pending final approval of the proposed settlement.Sea News, January 4
Related ABC/Eddy Chen(LAS VEGAS) — If you remember last month’s Oscars Best Picture mix-up, you might have noticed Ryan Gosling laughing amidst the confusion. Oh, face it: you never took your eyes off him.At any rate, now we know what was so funny.“I was watching people start to have this panicked reaction in the crowd and guys were coming on with headsets and I felt like someone had been hurt,” Gosling said at the Adobe Summit in Las Vegas yesterday, according to Entertainment Weekly.He continued, “I thought there was some kind of medical situation, and I had this worst-case scenario playing out in my head. And then I just heard Moonlight won and I was so relieved that I started laughing.”Gosling starred in the Academy Award winning La La Land with Oscar winner Emma Stone, but lost best actor to Casey Affleck. Regardless, Gosling said he was pleased with the evening’s outcome.“Truthfully, I was also so thrilled that Moonlight won. I know the director…I’ve worked with them before. It’s such a groundbreaking film, made for a million dollars, and incredible achievement and I’m so happy for them that they were being recognized,” he said.Well, there you have it — another reason to swoon for Gosling.Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.Powered by WPeMatico