Category: Justice

  • MIL-OSI Security: Massachusetts Man Admits to Robbing a Rhode Island Bank

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

     

    PROVIDENCE – A Springfield, MA, man has admitted to a federal judge that he robbed a Smithfield, RI, bank branch of more than $2,400, announced Acting United States Attorney Sara Miron Bloom.

    Radelle Hubbard, 47, admitted that on March 23, 2023, he entered a bank branch located inside a supermarket in Smithfield, RI, and proclaimed to bank tellers, “I have a gun, give me all the large bills from your drawer.” The tellers handed over $2,420 in cash after which Hubbard fled the bank. The tellers told police they did not see a firearm.

    According to information presented to the court, a private citizen followed Hubbard after he left the bank and provided law enforcement with a vehicle description and license plate number. Massachusetts State Police observed the vehicle and attempted to conduct a traffic stop, at which time the vehicle accelerated. The vehicle was ultimately stopped after spike trips, devices used to stop or impede the movement of vehicles by puncturing their tires, were deployed. Law enforcement seized $2,341 in cash and a high-capacity firearm from inside the vehicle.

    Appearing in U.S. District Court on Friday, Hubbard pleaded guilty to a charge of bank robbery. He is scheduled to be sentenced on June 24, 2025. The sentence imposed will be determined by a federal district judge after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Julie M. White.

    The matter was investigated by the FBI, Smithfield Police Department, and Massachusetts State Police.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Call for information – Ram raids – Greater Darwin Region

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    The Northern Territory Police Force is calling for information in relation to two ram raids in the Greater Darwin Region overnight.

    About 1:55am this morning, police received reports of a burglary at a licensed premises on Winnellie Road. It is alleged two males used a vehicle to ram the front doors of the premises before they entered and attempted to steal multiple items.

    A short time later at 2:35am, police received further reports that a ram raid occurred at a licenced premises in Humpty Doo where a quantity of alcohol was stolen.

    Strike Force Trident detectives reviewed CCTV and identified that the vehicle used in both ram raids was allegedly stolen from a residence in Roseberry. Police have since recovered the vehicle abandoned in Palmerston.

    Investigations remain ongoing to locate the offenders and police are urging anyone with information in relation to this incident to make contact on 131 444.

    You can anonymously report on Crimestoppers via 1800 333 000 or online at https://crimestoppersnt.com.au/. Please quote reference number P25080487.

    *This media release has been updated since initial release to clarify that two ram raids occurred*

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Arrest – Escape custody – Tennant Creek

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    The Northern Territory Police Force has arrested a 26-year-old male after he escaped NT Corrections custody in Tennant Creek on Saturday evening.

    At 7:40pm, police received a report that the male had absconded from an NT Corrections work placement on Peko Road.

    All available police units responded, and the male’s electronic monitoring device was located removed at an address on Griggs Street.

    The male was sighted nearby by an off-duty police officer who apprehended the offender in Boag Court after a short foot chase. He was subsequently arrested at 8:01pm by responding police.

    He has since been charged with Escape custody, Trespass and Damage to property.

    Superintendent Katie Hatzismalis said, “I commend the excellent work of responding Tennant Creek police, including the off-duty police member who apprehended the offender, ensuring he was returned into NT Corrections custody swiftly.”

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Charges – Property offences – Karama

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    The Northern Territory Police Force has charged a 17-year-old male in relation to multiple property offences in Karama on Saturday morning.

    About 8:10am, police received reports of a robbery at a service station on the corner of Kalymnos Drive and Koolinda Crescent. It is alleged the male entered the premises armed with an edged weapon and stole food before fleeing. 

    A short time later, police received further reports that the alleged offender went on to damage a residence with the edged weapon on Dorrigo Crescent.

    General duties located and arrested the male nearby without issue. Strike Force Trident took carriage of the investigation and has since charged him with:

    • Going equipped for theft (Weapon)
    • Aggravated Robbery
    • Theft
    • Going armed in Public
    • Damage to Property

    He was remanded to appear in Court today.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Illicit substance seizures – Adelaide River

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    The Northern Territory Police Force has seized a quantity of alcohol and cannabis during a traffic and drug detection operation in Adelaide River last week.

    On Thursday, 20 March, police received intelligence that a gold Toyota Prado destined for Wadeye Community was trafficking alcohol.

    The vehicle was intercepted on Stuart Highway where officers conducted a lawful search and located 38 bottles of liquor and 375 grams of cannabis.

    The alcohol and drugs were seized, and the 33-year-old male driver was issued a Notice to Appear in court on 6 May 2025.

    Remote Sergeant Colin Schwartz said, “The impact of this seizure will have significant benefits for the community in terms of harm minimisation.

    “We will continue to disrupt the flow of prohibited products entering protected areas to prevent anti-social behaviour, domestic violence incidents, and alcohol-fuelled violence, particularly when they are bound for remote communities.”

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Call for information – Stolen motor vehicles – Katherine

    Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services

    The Northern Territory Police Force is calling for information in relation to two stolen motor vehicles that were recovered on Sunday.

    About 4:10am, police received reports of two vehicles, a Ford Ranger and Toyota Hilux, driving erratically in Katherine CBD. Police attempted a traffic apprehension on the Ford Ranger and a pursuit ensued after the vehicle failed to stop. A short time later the vehicle stopped near the Katherine Sports grounds and all occupants fled from the scene on foot.

    Police recovered the Toyota Hilux abandoned on Victoria Highway a short time later. It has since been identified that the vehicles were stolen from the yard of a business on Gillard Crescent.

    This forms part of a crime series overnight targeting four Katherine commercial premises; it is unknown if the incidents are linked at this time. Strike Force Cerberus has carriage of the investigations.

    Anyone with information or dashcam footage in relation to these incidents is urged to contact police on 131 444.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Two new non-executive directors appointed to the SIA

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Two new non-executive directors appointed to the SIA

    The Minister for Safeguarding and the Minister for Security have both agreed to the appointment of two new non-executive directors to the Board of the SIA.

    Hannah Wadey, and Stephen Grainger were appointed to the Authority from 24 March 2025.

    Hannah Wadey is the CEO of the Safer Business Network. She has 20 years’ experience in community safety, security, and crime prevention. Hannah has a proven track record of delivering strategic change in public safety and building collaboration between government, police, businesses, and communities.

    A passionate advocate for reducing violence against women and girls and improving safeguarding, Hannah has led national campaigns tackling vulnerability. These include WAVE (Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement), ‘Ask for Angela’ and Spiking Awareness, and the Mayor of London’s Women’s Night Safety Charter.

    Stephen Grainger has extensive experience in protective security. He has held a portfolio of management consultancy positions, including the All-England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC), Wimbledon until 2013, when he became the Head of Security at the AELTC. Stephen had direct responsibility for all security planning and operations for The Championships, in addition to the year-round operations. He is presently providing strategic advisory security services in a range of environments including major sporting venues across the UK.

    Stephen also has 30 years of experience with the Metropolitan Police Service where he served at several boroughs in South and South-West London, including London Heathrow Airport. As Chief Superintendent, he held command positions at the Police Training College, Hendon, where he was responsible for all training. He also served as Head of the Royalty Protection Command.

    The appointments, which are for an initial period of 3 years, have been made following a robust open competition in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments.

    SIA Chair Heather Baily said:

    I am delighted to welcome Hannah and Stephen as new non-executive directors and members of the Authority. They bring a wealth of experience in protective security and a solid understanding of the private security industry we regulate.

    Historically we have always had five non-executive directors on the SIA Board. However, this is an exceptional time for the SIA, and I am grateful to our Ministers (previous and current) for allowing us an extra non-executive director to help with the implementation of Martyn’s Law.

    We engage extensively with the private security industry, and we have listened to their concerns regarding the need for industry representation on our Board. Hannah and Stephen’s professional background in this industry will be of great value in establishing and progressing the strategic aims and objectives of the SIA.

    Notes for editors

    The SIA is governed by a Board, which is made up of:

    • our non-executive directors, including our Chair
    • our executive directors, including our Chief Executive

    The Board’s role is to ensure that the SIA’s statutory responsibilities are met.

    The SIA’s pages on GOV.UK contain further details on the Board members.

    Further information

    The SIA is the organisation responsible for regulating the private security industry in the UK, reporting to the Home Secretary under the terms of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The SIA’s main duties are the compulsory licensing of individuals undertaking designated activities and managing the voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS).

    For further information about the SIA or to sign up for email updates visit www.gov.uk/sia. We also post articles and updates on WordPress. The SIA is on LinkedIn, Facebook (Security Industry Authority) and X (@SIAuk).

    For media enquiries only, please contact  media.enquiries@sia.gov.uk.

    Updates to this page

    Published 24 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Special Observance of International Women’s Day at Department of Legal Affairs

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Posted On: 24 MAR 2025 3:52PM by PIB Delhi

    The Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, marked International Womens Day with a special event at the Conference Hall of Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. The event was both enlightening and inspiring, serving as a powerful call for gender equality, womens empowerment, and recognition of their invaluable role in society and the future.

    The occasion was graced by Dr. Anju Rathi Rana, Law Secretary, along with other distinguished women from various fields who addressed issues related to womens rights and empowerment. The esteemed panel included Ms. Tripti Gurha, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development; Dr. Vageshwari Deswal, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi; and Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court.

    Smt. Sunita Moorti Anand, Additional Secretary, delivered the welcome address, emphasizing that women—comprising nearly half the population—now have equal opportunities to actively contribute across social, economic, and political spheres of society.

    Dr. Vageshwari Deswal highlighted societys collective responsibility in championing the cause of womens rights and equality. She traced the historical evolution of the movement, which ultimately led to the establishment of International Womens Day as a global celebration of womens achievements. Ms. Monika Arora captivated the audience with a compelling real-life narrative, illustrating how the law serves as a powerful tool for advancing womens rights and providing legal protection.

    Ms. Tripti Gurha reaffirmed the governments commitment to womens welfare, emphasizing the various initiatives and schemes available for womens empowerment. Building on this discussion, Dr. Anju Rathi Rana provided a nuanced perspective, stressing that rights must be accompanied by corresponding duties. She encouraged women to step forward, take initiative, and embrace leadership roles in all aspects of life. Her exhilarating keynote address resonated with the entire audience, inspiring a renewed commitment to action.

    A highlight of the event was an award ceremony recognizing the winners of an essay competition organized by Department of Legal Affairs. Dr. Anju Rathi Rana, Law Secretary, felicitated the winners and presented them with awards in the presence of esteemed guests, adding a memorable touch to the occasion.

    The event concluded with thought-provoking discussions on leadership, inclusivity, and the evolving role of women in shaping society. It reinforced the need for collective action to create a future where women are not only recognized for their contributions but also seen as architects of progress. More than just a celebration, the gathering served as a reminder that true equality is achieved through continuous effort, shared responsibility, and unwavering commitment.

    ***

    Samrat/Allen

    (Release ID: 2114392) Visitor Counter : 68

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI USA: DCR News Release – Work Furlough Inmate Missing from OCCC

    Source: US State of Hawaii

    DCR News Release – Work Furlough Inmate Missing from OCCC

    Posted on Mar 21, 2025 in Latest Department News, Newsroom

    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

    KA ‘OIHANA HOʻOMALU KALAIMA A HOʻOPONOPONO OLA

     

     

    JOSH GREEN, M.D.

    GOVERNOR

    KE KIAʻĀINA

     

     

    TOMMY JOHNSON

    DIRECTOR

    KA LUNA HO‘OKELE

     

     

    WORK FURLOUGH INMATE MISSING FROM OCCC

     

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    March 21, 2025

    HONOLULU — O‘ahu Community Correctional Center (OCCC) work furlough inmate Jason S. Takaki failed to return to Module 20 Friday, March 21, 2025.

    Takaki, 45, left Module 20 on a job-seeking pass this morning and was supposed to return by 2 p.m. today. State Sheriffs and the Honolulu Police Department were notified.

    Takaki is 5 feet, 5 inches tall, and weighs approximately 158 pounds with brown eyes and black hair. He is serving time for unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle, forgery and theft.

    He now faces a second-degree escape charge, a Class B felony that is punishable by up to five years in prison, if convicted.

    Takaki is a community custody inmate in the work furlough program with pass privileges. Community custody is the lowest classification status.

    Anyone with information on Takaki’s whereabouts is asked to call 911 or the Sheriffs at 808-586-1352.

     

    # # #

     

    Media Contact:

    Rosemarie Bernardo

    Public Information Officer

    Hawai‘i Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

    Office: 808-587-1358

    Cell: 808-683-5507

    Email: [email protected]

    Website: https://dcr.hawaii.gov

     

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UN Human Rights Council 58: UK Statement for Albania’s UPR

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    World news story

    UN Human Rights Council 58: UK Statement for Albania’s UPR

    UK Statement for Albania’s Universal Periodic Review Outcomes Session Statement. Delivered at the 58th HRC in Geneva.

    The United Kingdom welcomes the significant progress since Albania’s last UPR.

    We support Albania’s progression on justice reform to improve the integrity of its judiciary, combat corruption, and tackle the influence of organised crime following the adoption of legal reforms in 2016.

    We welcome our bilateral judicial partnership with Albania, establishing educational exchange between our judiciaries. Further, we commend Albania for its cooperation on criminal justice in pursuit of the protection of the state and citizens from criminal interests.

    We welcome the establishment of the Special Structure against Corruption and Organised Crime (SPAK) in 2019, which has made progress in addressing serious cases of corruption. We urge Albania to remain steadfast on anti-corruption: strengthening the independence of its judicial authorities, including SPAK, to operate without undue interference or political oversight. 

    The approval of a National Strategy for Gender Equality 2021-2030 to strengthen its gender equality framework is encouraging; we urge full implementation. We also welcome the creation of national shelters for survivors of domestic abuse, and a Reception Centre for victims of human trafficking.

    In the year of Albania’s parliamentary elections, we urge Albania to put into practice all outstanding OSCE recommendations for improving the conduct of elections.

    Updates to this page

    Published 24 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Mayoral Decisions under scrutiny

    Source: Mayor of London

    The Mayor has published a number of Mayoral Decisions since December 2024. These are on the GLA website. 

    Tomorrow, the GLA Oversight Committee will question guests on some of these decisions. 

    The Committee will take the opportunity to ask about the decision-making process and expected outcomes of a selected number of recent Mayoral Decisions. The Decisions chosen by the Committee for this consideration are: 

    MD3328 London Councils request for approval to increase parking and traffic enforcement penalty charges; and delegation of future borough requests to change penalty charge band

    ADD2740 Clean Air Night 2025

    DMFD252 London Fire Brigade – New headquarters project

    DMFD259 Legal costs related to matters arising out of the Grenfell Tower fire Inquiry

    DMFD255 Privacy for All Programme 2025-26.

    The guests are:

    • Rachel Hickman – Interim Executive Director for Strategy and Communications 
    • Mostaque Ahmed – Director of Corporate Services, London Fire Brigade
    • Other guests to be confirmed

    The Committee will also ask questions on the Mayor’s Annual Equalities reports for 2022-23 and 2023-24.  The guests are:

    • Dr Debbie Weekes-Bernard – Deputy Mayor for Communities and Social Justice
    • Tom Rahilly – Assistant Director for Communities and Social Policy, GLA 
    • Rupinder Parhar – Head of Equalities, GLA

    The meeting will take place on Tuesday 25 March from 10am, in the Chamber at City Hall, Kamal Chunchie Way, E16 1ZE.
     
    Media and members of the public are invited to attend.
     
    The meeting can also be viewed LIVE or later via webcast or YouTube.
     
    Follow us @LondonAssembly.
     

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 as regards the revision of the suspension mechanism – A10-0035/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 as regards the revision of the suspension mechanism

    (COM(2023)0642 – C9‑0392/2023 – 2023/0371(COD))

    (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2023)0642),

     having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 77(2), point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9‑0392/2023),

     having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

     having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A10-0035/2025),

    1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

    2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

    3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

     

    Amendment  1

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 1 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (1a) Visa-free travel brings significant benefits to the Union and third countries alike. Economic, social and cultural relations with third countries create prosperity and establish the Union as an open and free bloc. The Union’s common visa policy, in that regard, is a cornerstone of its engagement with third countries. At the same time, the evolving geopolitical context has brought new challenges linked to visa-free travel. Abuse of, and security risks resulting from, visa-free travel to the Union require a swift and adequate response. It is imperative that the Union be equipped to deal with those challenges accordingly.

    Amendment  2

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (2) The mechanism for the temporary suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement for the nationals of a third country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 (‘the suspension mechanism’) should be strengthened for the Union to have at its disposal a more efficient safeguard aimed at preventing a wider range of irregular migration, public policy and security risks arising from the third countries listed in that Annex II, as well as the abuse of the visa exemption through the operation of investor citizenship schemes by those third countries.

    (2) In order to address the new challenges linked to visa-free travel, the mechanism for the temporary suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement for the nationals of a third country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 (‘the suspension mechanism’) should be strengthened for the Union to have at its disposal a more efficient safeguard aimed at preventing a wider range of risks arising from the third countries listed in that Annex II, as well as the abuse of the visa exemption through the operation of investor citizenship schemes by those third countries.

    Amendment  3

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 3

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (3) In particular, the use of the suspension mechanism should be facilitated by broadening the possible grounds for suspension, adapting the relevant thresholds and procedures, and strengthening the Commission’s monitoring and reporting obligations.

    (3) In particular, the use of the suspension mechanism should be facilitated by broadening the possible grounds for suspension, making the relevant procedures more precise and strengthening the Commission’s monitoring and reporting obligations. Furthermore, the Commission should assess the overall impact of visa suspensions, including on reciprocity.

    Amendment  4

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 4

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (4) The Union has concluded a number of agreements on the short-stay visa waiver with countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 which may include different grounds for suspension or different procedures than the ones set out in the suspension mechanism, and may conclude further of those agreements in the future. As the Union respects international agreements and, thus, is bound by these agreements, the relevant different provisions set out in those agreements should be applied instead of the relevant provisions of the suspension mechanism.

    (4) The Union has concluded a number of agreements on the short-stay visa waiver with countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 which may include different grounds for suspension or different procedures than the ones set out in the suspension mechanism. It should be possible for the Union to suspend the visa-free regime established by those agreements by means of a generally applicable legal act of the Union. For that reason, the relevant grounds for suspension set out in those agreements should be included in the suspension mechanism. However, the use of the grounds for suspension set out in a short-stay visa waiver agreement should be limited to the scope of application of that agreement.

    Amendment  5

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 5

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (5) In its conclusions of 22 October 2021, the European Council invited the Commission to propose any necessary changes to the Union’s legal framework and concrete measures to ensure an immediate and appropriate response to hybrid threats in line with Union law and international obligations. Therefore, it should be possible to trigger the suspension mechanism in case of risks or threats to the public policy or internal security of the Member States arising from hybrid threats such as situations of state-sponsored instrumentalisation of migrants aimed at destabilising or undermining society and key institutions.

    (5) Due to a need to ensure an immediate and appropriate response to hybrid threats in line with Union law and international obligations, it should be possible to trigger the suspension mechanism in case of risks or threats to the public policy or internal security of the Member States arising from hybrid threats such as situations of state-sponsored instrumentalisation of migrants, as referred to in Regulation (EU) 2024/1359, which aim to destabilise or undermine society and key institutions.

    Amendment  6

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 6

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (6) Investor citizenship schemes operated by third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 allow visa-free travel to the Union to third-country nationals that would otherwise be visa required. Under an investor citizenship scheme, citizenship is granted in return for pre-determined payments or investments without any genuine link to the third country concerned. While the Union respects the right of sovereign countries to decide on their own naturalisation procedures, visa-free third countries should be deterred from using visa-free access to the Union as a tool for leveraging individual investment in return for their citizenship. To prevent visa-free access to the Union being used for this purpose, it should be possible to suspend the visa exemption for a third country which chooses to operate such investor citizenship schemes, whereby citizenship is granted without any genuine link to the third country concerned.

    (6) Investor citizenship schemes operated by third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 allow visa-free travel to the Union to third-country nationals that would otherwise be visa required. Under an investor citizenship scheme, citizenship is granted in return for pre-determined payments or investments without any genuine link to the third country concerned. While the Union respects the right of sovereign countries to decide on their own naturalisation procedures, visa-free third countries should be deterred from using visa-free access to the Union as a tool for leveraging individual investment in return for their citizenship. In addition, a lack of comprehensive security checks, vetting procedures and due diligence by such third countries with regard to investor citizenship schemes pose several serious security risks for Union citizens, such as those stemming from money laundering and corruption. To prevent visa-free access to the Union being used for this purpose, it should be possible to suspend the visa exemption for a third country which chooses to operate such investor citizenship schemes, whereby citizenship is granted without any genuine link to the third country concerned.

    Amendment  7

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 7

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (7) Where the visa policy of a third country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 is not aligned with the visa policy of the Union as regards the list of third countries whose nationals are required to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States, this could result in irregular migration to the Union, in particular where the concerned third country is in close geographic proximity to the Union. Therefore, it should be possible to trigger the suspension mechanism where, following an assessment, the Commission concludes that there is a risk of a substantial increase in the number of third-country nationals, other than nationals of that third country, who arrive legally in the territory of that third country and then irregularly enter the territory of the Member States.

    (7) Where the visa policy of a third country listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 is not aligned with the visa policy of the Union as regards the list of third countries whose nationals are required to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States, this could result in irregular migration to the Union, in particular where the concerned third country is in close geographic proximity to the Union. Therefore, it should be possible to trigger the suspension mechanism where, following an assessment, the Commission concludes that there is a substantial increase in the number of third-country nationals, other than nationals of that third country, who arrive legally in the territory of that third country and then irregularly enter the territory of the Member States.

    Amendment  8

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 7 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (7a) Refusing or failing to process readmission applications could include cases of a third country failing to assist, in a timely manner, in identifying third country nationals for whom a Member State has submitted readmission applications to that third country or otherwise creating persisting practical obstacles regarding the enforcement of readmission decisions.

    Amendment  9

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 8

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (8) The thresholds to trigger the suspension mechanism in case of a substantial increase in the number of nationals of a third country refused entry or found to be staying in the Member State’s territory without a right to do so, or in the number of asylum applications from the nationals of that third country for which the recognition rate is low, or in the number of serious criminal offences linked to the nationals of that third country, should be subject to a case-by-case assessment by the Commission. In particular, the Commission should be able to assess whether there are specific circumstances, in the cases notified by Member States or under its own analysis, which would justify the application of lower or higher thresholds than those indicated in relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806. The Commission’s assessment should take into account, for example, the number of unauthorised crossings of the external borders of the Member States, unfounded asylum applications or criminal offences in proportion to the number and size of Member States affected and the impact of those numbers on the overall migratory situation, functioning of the asylum systems or internal security of the Member States affected, as well as actions taken by the third country concerned to remedy the situation.

    (8) The thresholds to trigger the suspension mechanism in case of a substantial increase in the number of nationals of a third country refused entry or found to be staying in the Member State’s territory without a right to do so, or in the number of asylum applications from the nationals of that third country for which the recognition rate is low, should be clearly set out in order to avoid diverging interpretations and the risk of inconsistent practices. In particular, the Commission should assess whether there are specific circumstances, in the cases notified by Member States or under its own analysis, which would justify the application of the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806. Additionally, taking into account the impact that a suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement might have on relations with the third country concerned and on the rights of its nationals, the Commission should thoroughly assess the necessity, proportionality and consequences of such a suspension before adopting the relevant act.

    Amendment  10

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 8 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (8a) For the purpose of determining whether a recognition rate of asylum application is low, it is important that the Commission carry out a case-by-case assessment, taking into account the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data, the way in which relevant Union law on asylum is being implemented, and the specific circumstances of the third country concerned.

    Amendment  11

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 8 b (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (8b) It should be possible to trigger the suspension mechanism in the event of serious breaches by a third country of the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations or in the event of grave violations of the obligations deriving from international human rights law or international humanitarian law, violations of bilateral agreements between the Union and that third country, non-compliance or non-alignment with relevant Union sanctions, or hostile acts towards the Union or Member States which aim to destabilise or undermine society and key institutions for the public policy and internal security of the Member states and the Union. Such hostile acts could result from foreign interference in political processes, economic coercion, cyber operations, economic espionage or the sabotage of critical infrastructure.

    Amendment  12

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 8 c (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (8c) Where the Commission considers suspending an exemption from the visa requirement on its own accord or following a notification by a Member State, the Commission should take into account, in its evaluation, the impact of the proposed suspension on the principles of visa reciprocity and non-discrimination and whether the proposed suspension represents an appropriate measure to remedy the situation. Special attention should be given to civil society, in particular where the human rights situation in the third country concerned has deteriorated.

    Amendment  13

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 9

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (9) For the purpose of notifying to the Commission the circumstances that may amount to a ground for suspension, Member States should be able to take into account reference periods longer than two months in order to identify not only sudden changes in the relevant situation, but also longer-term trends that may justify the use of the visa suspension mechanism.

    (9) For the purpose of notifying to the Commission the circumstances that may amount to a ground for suspension, Member States should take into account reference periods between two and twelve months in order to identify sudden changes in the relevant situation that may justify the use of the visa suspension mechanism. The suspension mechanism should only be triggered where the reasons for relying on the relevant ground are sufficient and clear. The Commission should fully and immediately inform the European Parliament and the Council of notifications it receives and decisions it takes as a result.

    Amendment  14

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 10

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (10) Whenever it considers it necessary, or upon request by the European Parliament or by the Council, the Commission should report on the outcome of its systematic monitoring of the visa-free regimes with all the third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806. The report should focus on those third countries which, according to the Commission’s analysis, present specific problems that, if not addressed, may lead to trigger the suspension mechanism. In particular, the Commission should consider reporting on countries which have been newly listed in Annex II without undergoing a visa liberalisation dialogue, where it considers it necessary and in particular in the first years following the entry into force of the visa exemption for those countries.

    (10) Whenever it considers it necessary, or upon request by the European Parliament or by the Council, the Commission should report on the outcome of its systematic monitoring of the visa-free regimes with all the third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806. The report should focus on those third countries which, according to the Commission’s analysis, present specific problems that, if not addressed, may lead to trigger the suspension mechanism. In particular, the Commission should report on countries which have been newly listed in Annex II without undergoing a visa liberalisation dialogue, where it considers it necessary and in particular in the first years following the entry into force of the visa exemption for those countries.

    Amendment  15

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 10 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (10a) In light of the far-reaching consequences that the temporary suspension of an exemption from the visa requirement might have on the nationals of the third country concerned, the Commission should favour a targeted approach, applying the suspension first and foremost to selected individuals holding positions of responsibility, such as members of that third country’s official delegations, members of local, regional and national governments, members of parliaments or high-ranking public or military officials, while making every effort to minimise the adverse consequences on the general population of that third country. The Commission should continuously monitor whether the triggering of the suspension mechanism has achieved the intended result and regularly report thereon to the European Parliament and to the Council.

    Amendment  16

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 11

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (11) Where a decision to temporarily suspend the visa exemption for a third country has been taken, there should be an adequate timeframe for the enhanced dialogue between the Commission and the concerned third country aimed at remedying the circumstances that led to the suspension. For this purpose, the duration of the temporary suspension decided by a Commission implementing act should be 12 months in a first phase, with a possibility to extend it by a further 24 months with a delegated act in a second phase. Where no solution is found before the end of the period of validity of the delegated act and the Commission presents a legislative proposal to transfer the concerned third country from Annex II to Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, the Commission should adopt a delegated act extending the temporary suspension until the entry into force of the adopted proposal.

    (11) Where a decision to temporarily suspend the visa exemption for a third country has been taken, there should be an adequate timeframe for the enhanced dialogue between the Commission and the concerned third country aimed at remedying the circumstances that led to the suspension. For this purpose, the duration of the temporary suspension decided by a Commission implementing act should be 12 months in a first phase, with a possibility to extend it by a further 24 months with a delegated act in a second phase. Where no solution is found before the end of the period of validity of the delegated act and the Commission presents a legislative proposal to transfer the concerned third country from Annex II to Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, the Commission should adopt a delegated act extending the temporary suspension for a further six months or until the entry into force of the adopted proposal, whichever comes first.

    Amendment  17

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 12

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (12) The Commission should adopt immediately applicable implementing acts where, in duly justified cases related to the triggering of the suspension mechanism, imperative grounds of urgency require expedited action, in particular to prevent any abuse of visa-free travel causing a mass influx of third-country nationals arriving irregularly in the territory of the Member States or a serious damage to the public policy or internal security of Member States.

    (12) The Commission should adopt immediately applicable implementing acts where, in duly justified cases related to the triggering of the suspension mechanism, a serious threat to public policy or internal security of a Member State requires immediate action, in particular to prevent any abuse of visa-free travel causing a mass influx of third-country nationals arriving irregularly in the territory of the Member States or a serious damage to the public policy or internal security of Member States.

    Amendment  18

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 13

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (13) The temporary suspension should be lifted at any time where the circumstances that led to the suspension are remedied before the end of the period of the suspension. To this end, the Commission should adopt, respectively, an implementing act before the end of the period of suspension set out in the relevant implementing act, and a delegated act before the end of the period of suspension set out in the relevant delegated act.

    (13) The temporary suspension should be lifted at any time where the circumstances that led to the suspension are remedied before the end of the period of the suspension or where the suspension turns out to be ineffective for the purpose of remedying the situation. To this end, the Commission should adopt, respectively, an implementing act before the end of the period of suspension set out in the relevant implementing act, and a delegated act before the end of the period of suspension set out in the relevant delegated act.

    Amendment  19

    Proposal for a regulation

    Recital 14

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (14) As regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters’ association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points B, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC23.

    (14) As regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters’ association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, points B and C, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC23.

    __________________

    __________________

    23 Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 31).

    23 Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 31).

    Amendment  20

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d

     

    Present text

    Amendment

     

    (-1) In Article 7 point (d) is replaced by the following:

    (d) the Commission shall, when considering further steps in accordance with point (e), (f) or (h), take into account the outcome of the measures taken by the Member State concerned with a view to ensuring visa-free travel with the third country in question, the steps taken in accordance with point (b), and the consequences of the suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement for the external relations of the Union and its Member States with the third country in question;

    “(d) the Commission shall, when considering further steps in accordance with point (e) or (h), take into account the outcome of the measures taken by the Member State concerned with a view to ensuring visa-free travel with the third country in question, the steps taken in accordance with point (b), and the consequences of the suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement for the external relations of the Union and its Member States with the third country in question;”

    Amendment  21

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8 – paragraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    2. In cases where an agreement on the short-stay visa waiver between the Union and a third country listed in Annex II includes provisions on different grounds or procedures for suspension, those provisions shall be applied instead of Articles 8a, 8e and 8f of this Regulation.

    2. In cases where an agreement on the short-stay visa waiver between the Union and a third country listed in Annex II has been concluded, Articles 8a, 8e and 8f of this Regulation shall apply without prejudice to the relevant provisions on grounds for suspension and procedures set out in the agreement.

    Amendment  22

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8a – paragraph 1 – introductory part

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    The suspension mechanism may be triggered on the following grounds:

    The suspension mechanism may be triggered by any of the following grounds:

    Amendment  23

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point d – point i

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (i) a substantial increase in serious criminal offences, linked to the nationals of that third country, substantiated by objective, concrete and relevant information and data provided by the competent authorities;

    (i) a substantial increase in serious criminal offences, linked to the nationals of that third country, substantiated by objective, concrete and relevant information and data provided by the competent authorities; or

    Amendment  24

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point f

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (f) the non-alignment of the visa policy of a third country listed in Annex II, where, in particular because of the geographic proximity of that third country to the Union, there is a risk of a substantial increase in the number of third-country nationals, other than nationals of that third country, who enter irregularly the territory of the Member States after having stayed on, or transited through, the territory of that third country;

    (f) the non-alignment of the visa policy of a third country listed in Annex II, where, in particular because of the geographic proximity of that third country to the Union, there is a substantial increase in the number of third-country nationals, other than nationals of that third country, who enter irregularly the territory of the Member States after having stayed on, or transited through, the territory of that third country;

    Amendment  25

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8a – paragraph 1 – point g a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    (ga) a deterioration in the Union’s external relations with a third country listed in Annex II caused by:

     

    (i) serious breaches by that third country of the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations;

     

    (ii) grave violations by that third country of the obligations deriving from international human rights law or international humanitarian law;

     

    (iii) violations by that third country of bilateral agreements between it and the Union;

     

    (iv) that third country carrying out hostile acts against the Union or Member States with the aim of destabilising or undermining society or institutions which are key for the public policy and internal security of the Union or the Member States;

     

    (v) non-compliance or non-alignment by that third country with relevant Union sanctions.

    Amendment  26

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8a – paragraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, points (a), (b) and (d)(i), of this Article a substantial increase shall mean an increase exceeding a threshold of 50%, unless the Commission in accordance with Article 8b(4) or Article 8c(2) concludes that a lower or higher increase is applicable in the particular case.

    2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, points (a), (b) and (d)(i), and paragraph 4 of this Article a substantial increase shall mean an increase exceeding a threshold of 40 %, unless the Commission in accordance with Article 8b(4) or Article 8c(2) concludes that a lower or higher increase is applicable in the particular case. The Commission shall duly justify any such conclusion.

    Amendment  27

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8a – paragraph 3

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    3. For the purposes of paragraph 1, point (b), of this Article a low recognition rate shall mean a recognition rate of asylum applications of less than 4%, unless the Commission in accordance with Article 8b(4) or Article 8c(2) concludes that a higher recognition rate is applicable in the particular case.

    deleted

    Amendment  28

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8a – paragraph 4

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    4. For the purposes of paragraph 1, point (c), a decrease in cooperation on readmission with a third country listed in Annex II shall mean a substantial increase, substantiated by adequate data, in the refusal rate of readmission applications submitted by a Member State to that third country for its own nationals or, where a readmission agreement concluded between the Union or that Member State and that third country so provides, for third-country nationals having transited through that third country.

    4. For the purposes of paragraph 1, point (c), a decrease in cooperation on readmission with a third country listed in Annex II shall mean a substantial increase, substantiated by adequate data, in the refusal rate of readmission applications submitted by a Member State to that third country for its own nationals, or, where a readmission agreement concluded between the Union or that Member State and that third country so provides, for third-country nationals having transited through that third country, provided that it can be duly justified that the decrease in cooperation is the result of the action or inaction of that third country and is not attributable to the Member State that submitted the readmission applications.

    Amendment  29

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point a

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (a) refusing or failing to process readmission applications in due time;

    (a) refusing or failing to process readmission applications;

    Amendment  30

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point b

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (b) failing to issue travel documents in due time for the purposes of returning within the deadlines set out in the readmission agreement or refusing to accept European travel documents issued following the expiry of the deadlines set out in the readmission agreement;

    (b) failing to issue travel documents to its own nationals or persons recognised by the third country as having a right of residence in its territory for the purposes of returning within the deadlines set out in the readmission agreement or refusing to accept European travel documents issued following the expiry of the deadlines set out in the readmission agreement;

    Amendment  31

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8b – paragraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    1. A Member State may notify the Commission if it is confronted, over a period of at least two months, compared with either the same period in the preceding year or the last two months prior to the implementation of the exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of a third country listed in Annex II, with one or more of the circumstances amounting to the grounds for suspension referred to in Article 8a(1), points (a), (b), (c), and (d)(i).

    1. A Member State may notify the Commission if it is confronted, over a period between two and twelve months, compared with either the same period in the preceding year or the last two months prior to the implementation of the exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of a third country listed in Annex II, with one or more of the circumstances amounting to the grounds for suspension referred to in Article 8a(1), points (a), (b), (c), and (d)(i).

    Amendment  32

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8b – paragraph 1 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    1a. A Member State may notify the Commission of the existence of any of the grounds for suspension referred to in Article 8a(1), points (d)(ii), (e), (f), (g) and (ga).

    Amendment  33

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8b – paragraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    2. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall state the reasons on which it is based and shall include relevant data and statistics as well as a detailed explanation of the preliminary measures that the Member State concerned has taken with a view to remedying the situation. In its notification, the Member State concerned may specify the categories of nationals of the third country concerned which are to be covered by an implementing act under Article 8e(1), specifying the detailed reasons for doing so.

    2. The notification referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a of this Article shall state the reasons on which it is based. Where relevant, that notification shall include relevant data and statistics as well as a detailed explanation of the preliminary measures that the Member State concerned has taken with a view to remedying the situation. In its notification, the Member State concerned may specify the categories of nationals of the third country concerned which are to be covered by an implementing act under Article 8e(1), specifying the detailed reasons for doing so.

    Amendment  34

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8b – paragraph 4 – introductory part

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    4. The Commission shall examine any notification made pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, taking into account:

    4. The Commission shall examine any notification made pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 1a of this Article, taking into account:

    Amendment  35

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8b – paragraph 4 – point a

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (a) whether any of the circumstances amounting to the grounds referred to in Article 8a(1), points (a), (b), (c), or (d)(i) exist;

    (a) whether any of the circumstances amounting to the grounds referred to in Article 8a(1) exist;

    Amendment  36

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8b – paragraph 4 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    4a. As part of its examination pursuant to paragraph 4, the Commission shall also assess the necessity, proportionality and consequences of a suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement.

    Amendment  37

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8c – paragraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    2. Where the Commission, taking into account the relevant data, reports and statistics, has concrete and reliable information on the existence of any of the grounds referred to in Article 8a(1) it shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of its analysis, and Article 8e and Article 8f shall apply.

    2. Where the Commission, taking into account the relevant data, reports and statistics, including data, reports and statistics from any relevant Union institution, body, office or agency, and after having carried out an assessment as referred to in Article 8b(4a), has concrete and reliable information on the existence of any of the grounds referred to in Article 8a(1) it shall inform the European Parliament and the Council of its analysis, and Article 8e and Article 8f shall apply.

    Amendment  38

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8d – paragraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    1. The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the monitoring conducted in accordance with Article 8c(1) with regard to the third countries which have been listed in Annex II as a result of the successful conclusion of a visa liberalisation dialogue conducted between the Union and that third country, at least once a year and for a period of seven years after the date of entry into force of visa liberalisation for those third countries, and thereafter whenever the Commission considers it to be necessary, or upon request by the European Parliament or by the Council. The report shall focus on the third countries which the Commission considers, based on concrete and reliable information, as no longer complying with certain specific requirements, which are based on Article 1 and which were used to assess the appropriateness of granting visa liberalisation.

    1. The Commission shall periodically report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the monitoring conducted in accordance with Article 8c(1) with regard to the third countries which have been listed in Annex II, ensuring that each of those third countries is reported on at least once within a four-year period.

     

    1a. The Commission shall report on an annual basis for a period of seven years after the date of entry into force of visa liberalisation for those third countries which have been listed as a result of the successful conclusion of a visa liberalisation dialogue conducted between the Union and that third country.

     

    1b. Whenever the Commission considers it necessary, it shall report on the third countries which it considers, based on concrete and reliable information, as no longer complying with certain specific requirements, which are based on Article 1 and which were used to assess the appropriateness of granting visa liberalisation.

    Amendment  39

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8e – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    Where, on the basis of the examination referred to in Article 8b(4), or the analysis referred to in Article 8c(2), and taking into account the consequences of a suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement for the overall external relations of the Union and its Member States with the third country concerned, while working in close cooperation with that third country to find alternative long-term solutions, the Commission decides that action is needed, or where a simple majority of Member States have notified the Commission of the existence of circumstances referred to in Article 8a(1), points (a), (b), (c) or (d)(i), the Commission shall adopt an implementing act temporarily suspending the exemption from the visa requirement for the nationals of the third country concerned for a period of 12 months.

    Where, on the basis of the examination referred to in Article 8b(4), or the analysis referred to in Article 8c(2), and taking into account the consequences of a suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement for the overall external relations of the Union and its Member States with the third country concerned, while working in close cooperation with that third country to find alternative long-term solutions, the Commission decides that action is needed, or where a simple majority of Member States have notified the Commission of the existence of circumstances referred to in Article 8a(1), points (a), (b), (c) or (d), the Commission shall adopt an implementing act temporarily suspending the exemption from the visa requirement for the nationals of the third country concerned for a period of 12 months.

    Amendment  40

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8e – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    Notwithstanding Article 6(1), point (a), where the Commission has adopted an implementing act under this paragraph which temporarily suspends the exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of the third country concerned who hold diplomatic passports, service/official passports or special passports, the Member States shall not provide for exceptions therefrom.

    Amendment  41

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8e – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3 – point c

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    (c) receiving the notification from a simple majority of Member States of the existence of grounds referred to in Article 8a(1), points (a), (b), (c) or (d)(i).

    (c) receiving the notification from a simple majority of Member States of the existence of grounds referred to in Article 8a(1), points (a), (b), (c) or (d).

    Amendment  42

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8e – paragraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    2. On duly justified imperative grounds of urgency, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 11(4), temporarily suspending the exemption from the visa requirement for the nationals of the third country concerned for a period of 12 months.

    2. On duly justified imperative grounds of urgency, where a significant risk or imminent threat to public policy or internal security of a Member State as set out in Article 8a(1), point (d), requires immediate action, the Commission may adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 11(4), temporarily suspending the exemption from the visa requirement for the nationals of the third country concerned for a maximum period of 12 months.

    Amendment  43

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8e – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    In cases as referred to in the first subparagraph, the Commission shall comprehensively and consistently inform the European Parliament and the Council throughout the procedure.

    Amendment  44

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8e – paragraph 3

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    3. During the period of suspension, the Commission shall establish an enhanced dialogue with the third country concerned with a view to remedying the circumstances in question.

    3. During the period of suspension, the Commission shall establish an enhanced dialogue with the third country concerned with a view to remedying the circumstances in question and shall regularly report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress and outcome of the dialogue and on the effectiveness of the suspension.

    Amendment  45

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8f – paragraph 1 a new

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    1a. The delegated act referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by a report to the European Parliament and to the Council detailing the outcome of the enhanced dialogue with the third country concerned, the measures adopted by that third country and by the Member States concerned, and the reasons for considering that the circumstances leading to the temporary suspension have not been remedied. 

    Amendment  46

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8f – paragraph 1 b new

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    1b. Notwithstanding Article 6(1), point (a), where the Commission has adopted a delegated act under paragraph 1 of this Article the Member States shall not provide for exemptions as regards nationals of the third country concerned who hold diplomatic passports, service/official passports or special passports.

    Amendment  47

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8f – paragraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    2. Without prejudice to the application of Article 6, during the period of suspension, the nationals of the third country concerned shall be required to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States.

    2. Without prejudice to the application of Article 6 and paragraph 1b of this Article, during the period of suspension, the nationals of the third country concerned shall be required to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States.

    Amendment  48

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8f – paragraph 3

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    3. A Member State which, in accordance with Article 6, provides for new exemptions from the visa requirement for a category of nationals of the third country covered by the act suspending the exemption from the visa requirement shall communicate those measures in accordance with Article 12.

    3. A Member State which, in accordance with Article 6(1), points (b) to (f), Article 6(2) or Article 6(3), provides for new exemptions from the visa requirement for a category of nationals of the third country covered by the act suspending the exemption from the visa requirement shall communicate those measures in accordance with Article 12.

    Amendment  49

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8f – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    Before the end of the period of validity of the delegated act adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council.

    Before the end of the period of validity of the delegated act adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the temporary application of the visa suspension, on the dialogue between the Commission and the third country concerned and on the measures taken to remedy the circumstances having led to the temporary suspension of the visa exemption.

    Amendment  50

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8f – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

    The report may be accompanied by a legislative proposal to amend this Regulation in order to transfer the reference to the third country concerned from Annex II to Annex I. In that case, the Commission shall adopt a further delegated act in accordance with Article 10, amending Annex II to extend the period of suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement from the end of the period of validity of the delegated act adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article until the entry into force of the amendment transferring the third country concerned to Annex I. The footnote shall be amended accordingly.

    The report may be accompanied by a legislative proposal to amend this Regulation in order to transfer the reference to the third country concerned from Annex II to Annex I. In that case, the Commission shall adopt a further delegated act in accordance with Article 10, amending Annex II to extend the period of suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement set by the delegated act adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article by a period of six months or until the entry into force of the amendment transferring the third country concerned to Annex I, whichever comes first. The footnote shall be amended accordingly.

    Amendment  51

    Proposal for a regulation

    Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

    Regulation (EU) 2018/1806

    Article 8f a (new)

     

    Text proposed by the Commission

    Amendment

     

    Article 8fa

     

    Suspension of the possibility to provide for exceptions from the visa requirement as regards countries listed in Annex I

     

    1. In the event of a deterioration in the Union’s external relations of the kind referred to in Article 8a(1), point (ga), of this Regulation with a third country listed in Annex I to this Regulation[, and provided that that deterioration is of a significant and abrupt nature], or following the adoption of an implementing decision pursuant to Article 25a(5) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, the Commission may adopt an implementing act to suspend any exceptions from the visa requirement provided for by Member States pursuant to Article 6(1) of this Regulation as regards holders of diplomatic passports, service/official passports or special passports.

     

    2. The Commission shall continuously assess whether it is possible to achieve a substantial and sustained improvement in the Union’s external relations with the third country concerned or in the level of cooperation of the third country concerned as regards the readmission of irregular migrants. On the basis of that assessment, the Commission may adopt an implementing act to repeal or amend the implementing act referred to in the first paragraph.

     

    3. The implementing acts referred in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 11(2).

    EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

    1. Background

     

    One of the basic pillars of the EU visa policy is the Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement for stays of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period.

     

    It determines the basic principles for granting visa liberalisation, sets the so-called “positive” or visa exempt third countries and “negative” or visa required third countries lists, and it provides for safeguards when visa free regime could be suspended via two basic mechanisms, namely the reciprocity mechanism and the suspension mechanism, as well as the procedures for their triggering.

     

    Following the calls from both co-legislators on the need to revise the suspension mechanism in order to be more adapt to the emerging challenges, the European Commission presented in October 2023 targeted proposal for the revision of the suspension mechanism with the aim to strengthen and improve several elements of it. The proposed revision concerns the revision of Article 8 and includes several substantive amendments related to the possible grounds for suspension as well as to the procedures.

     

    This suspension mechanism was first introduced in 2013[1] with the main purpose to enable a temporary suspension of the visa exemption in case of a sudden and substantial increase in irregular migration. The mechanism was subsequently revised in 2017[2] by making it easier for Member States to notify circumstances leading to a possible suspension and by enabling the Commission to trigger the suspension mechanism on its own initiative.

     

    2. The proposed amendments to the suspension mechanism

     

    In its latest proposal, the Commission makes several changes to the current mechanism. New suspension ground are proposed related to hybrid threats such as situations of state-sponsored instrumentalisation of migrants aimed at destabilising or undermining society and key institutions, as well as new grounds specifically addressing investor citizenship schemes, which are currently operated by number of visa exempt third countries.

     

    A new suspension ground is also added to cover cases where the lack of visa policy alignment of a third country listed in Annex II with the visa policy of the Union, could lead to situations where third-country nationals, other than nationals of that third country, arrive legally in the territory of that third country and then enter irregularly the territory of the Member States.

     

    Also new with this proposal is the possibility for the Commission to consider different thresholds when deciding whether to suspend a visa exemption in cases of a substantial increase in irregular migration, unfounded asylum applications or serious criminal offences linked to the nationals of that third country, following a case-by-case assessment.

     

    The proposal also makes changes to the procedure and conditions for a Member State’s notification to the Commission when it is confronted by one or more circumstances amounting to a ground for suspension, and the procedure for the Commission’s examination of such a notification. It also modifies the reference period for identifying the existence of the circumstances which may lead to the suspension.

     

    The Commission will also have the obligation to monitor on a regular basis the existence of the grounds for suspension with regard to all third countries listed in Annex II, and the procedure to trigger the suspension mechanism based on the Commission’s own analysis of the existence of such grounds.

     

    This procedure is further amended by increasing the duration of the temporary suspension of the visa exemption from nine months to 12 months (for the first phase) and from 18 months to 24 months (for the second phase), as well as a new urgency procedure is introduced when the situation requires immediate action by the Commission.

     

    3. Position of the Rapporteur

     

    The expansion of the visa-free travel to several new third countries in recent years, as well as constantly new emerging challenges and crisis occurring around the world, the Rapporteur considers that the European Union needs effective and sufficient tools to respond to such challenges, including in the area of visa policy.

     

    The Rapporteur in that respect therefore largely supports the aim of the Commission and the need to strengthen and improve the visa suspension mechanism. It is worth noting that since its introduction in 2013, the suspension mechanism has only been triggered once. Namely in the case of Vanuatu due to EU’s concerns of its operation of investor citizenship schemes, for which a partial suspension has been adopted by the Council in March 2022, following by a full suspension in October of 2022, which is still in place.

     

    Due to ever changing world and evolution of the EU policies as well as the visa free regime, the Rapporteur believes that the revision of the suspension mechanism ought to look at the EU visa policy holistically considering all aspects.

     

    The Rapporteur therefore believes that there is an inherent gap between the conditions for the exemption from EU visa requirements, which are based on a case-by-case assessment of a variety of criteria, and the grounds allowing for the suspension from the said exemption. The Rapporteur considers as well that a discrepancy exists particular in relation to the Union’s external relations with the relevant third countries, including considerations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

     

    In that regard, the Rapporteur is of the opinion that grounds for suspension of visa free regime with a third country must include considerations relating to Union’s or in certain cases Member States’ external relations with the relevant third country.

     

    Those grounds for suspension should include, among others: a) breaches or suspension of bilateral and multilateral agreements between the European Union or the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and the relevant third countries, on the other; b) serious breaches of international law and standards, including international humanitarian law, by the relevant third country, including non-compliance with the international court decisions and rulings; c) hostile acts or aggression against one or more Member States or the Union by the relevant third country; d) serious human rights violations, including criminalisation of abortion, LGBTQ+ persons, as well as the introduction or the use of death penalty by the relevant third country; and e) the non-compliance with the relevant EU sanctions.

     

    The Rapporteur also believes that the regular evaluation is needed of the continue fulfilment of the basic grounds for third countries benefiting from visa liberalisation which was not a result of the successful conclusion of a visa liberalisation dialogue. In that respect, the Rapporteur supports the Commission’s proposal as regards the monitoring the existence of the grounds for suspension for all third countries, however their consideration must undoubtedly include considerations relating to Union’s or in certain cases Member States’ external relations with the relevant third country.

     

    Since the current parliamentary term is quickly coming to an end, the Rapporteur wishes to quickly proceed with the adoption of the European Parliament’s negotiating mandate in order to secure a progressive text which should be reflected also in the EU visa policy going forward.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Security: More than 300 arrests as African countries clamp down on cyber threats

    Source: Interpol (news and events)

    24 March 2025

    LYON, France — Authorities in seven African countries have arrested 306 suspects and seized 1,842 devices in an international operation targeting cyber attacks and cyber-enabled scams.

    The arrests were made as part of Operation Red Card (November 2024 – February 2025) which aims to disrupt and dismantle cross-border criminal networks which cause significant harm to individuals and businesses. In particular, the operation targeted mobile banking, investment and messaging app scams. The cases uncovered during the operation involved more than 5,000 victims.

    As part of the crackdown, Nigerian police arrested 130 people, including 113 foreign nationals, for their alleged involvement in cyber-enabled scams such as online casino and investment fraud. The suspects, who converted proceeds to digital assets to conceal their tracks, were recruited from different countries to run the illegal schemes in as many languages as possible. Nigerian authorities have established that some of the people working in the scam centres may also be victims of human trafficking, forced or coerced into criminal activities. Overall, the investigation led to the seizure of 26 vehicles, 16 houses, 39 plots of land and 685 devices.

    In a significant case from South Africa, authorities arrested 40 individuals and seized more than 1,000 SIM cards, along with 53 desktops and towers linked to a sophisticated SIM box fraud scheme. This setup, which reroutes international calls as local ones, is commonly used by criminals to carry out large-scale SMS phishing attacks.

    In Zambia, officers apprehended 14 suspected members of a criminal syndicate that hacked into victims’ phones. The scam involved sending a message containing a malicious link which, when clicked, installed malware to the device. This allowed hackers to take control of the messaging account, and ultimately the phone, giving them access to banking apps. The hackers were also able to use the victim’s messaging apps to share the malicious link within conversations and groups, enabling the scam to spread.

    During the operation, Rwandan authorities arrested 45 members of a criminal network for their involvement in social engineering scams that defrauded victims of over USD 305,000 in 2024 alone. Their tactics included posing as telecommunications employees and claiming fake ‘jackpot’ wins to extract sensitive information and gain access to victims’ mobile banking accounts. Another method involved impersonating an injured family member to ask relatives for financial assistance towards hospital bills. Overall, USD 103,043 was recovered and 292 devices were seized.

    Neal Jetton, INTERPOL’s Director of the Cybercrime Directorate, said:

    “The success of Operation Red Card demonstrates the power of international cooperation in combating cybercrime, which knows no borders and can have devastating effects on individuals and communities. The recovery of significant assets and devices, as well as the arrest of key suspects, sends a strong message to cybercriminals that their activities will not go unpunished.”

    Ahead of the operation, countries exchanged criminal intelligence on key targets. This intelligence was enriched by INTERPOL with insights into criminal modus operandi using data from its private sector partners—Group-IB, Kaspersky and Trend Micro.

     The seven participating countries were Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Togo and Zambia.

    The operation was delivered through INTERPOL’s African Joint Operation against Cybercrime (AFJOC), an initiative funded by the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Scottish Anti-Illicit Trade Group relaunches to combat counterfeit crime

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Scottish Anti-Illicit Trade Group relaunches to combat counterfeit crime

    The Scottish Anti-Illicit Trade Group (SAITG) has relaunched this month, with the aim of combating counterfeiting and intellectual property crime in Scotland.

    Supported by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the group brings together law enforcement, government and businesses to strengthen Scotland’s fight against this illicit trade.

    According to IPO research, almost one in three of those asked (29%) across the UK have purchased counterfeit goods in the past. Almost one in five (19%) said they purchase them often, sometimes or on an occasional basis. For 2021, the overall estimated value of imported counterfeit goods into the United Kingdom was over £7 billion.

    The group will focus on developing best practice and enhancing collective strategies to tackle the supply of counterfeit goods across Scotland. They will form a coordinated response to protect Scottish products, businesses and consumers from the threat of IP crime.

    It brings together members including the Scotch Whisky Association, Police Scotland, Trading Standards, The Wine & Spirit Trade Association and The Anti-Counterfeiting Group.

    Together, they will create a forum for distinct industry areas to share insight, intelligence and provide training and support for law enforcement agencies.

    The group’s work will also help build a greater understanding among the wider public of the harms this trade causes, emphasising that counterfeiting is anything but a victimless crime.

    The IPO’s Deputy Director of Enforcement Miles Rees stressed the importance of collaboration:

    We are pleased to support the re-launch of the Scottish Anti-Illicit Trade Group, which marks an important moment in tackling this significant threat to businesses and consumers in Scotland. Counterfeit goods not only harm those using them, but also cause wider harms to society, our economy and communities. Government, industry and law enforcement all have a crucial role to play in working together to combat counterfeiting and piracy, and the group represents a vital forum, helping drive action together.

    Rachel Jones, newly appointed Chair of the Scottish Anti-Illicit Trade Group and founder of Snapdragon, said:

    Counterfeiting is not a victimless crime. It is the second largest source of criminal income in the world, after drugs. I’m very honoured to chair this group as we bring together key partners to protect Scotland’s heritage brands and consumers.

    Fiona Richardson, Chief Officer for Trading Standards Scotland, said:

    Illicit trade is a priority for Trading Standards Scotland and the team regularly looks to undertake actions against those selling counterfeit goods. These actions are aimed at protecting consumers and legitimate businesses by preventing the sale of counterfeit products throughout Scotland.

    Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Ferry of Police Scotland emphasised the serious nature of illicit trade:

    People may believe this type of criminality to be victimless. The reality is that illicit trade funds serious organised crime, undermines legitimate businesses, puts jobs at risk and causes harm in our communities as the profits fund other illegal activities.

    Alan Park, Director of Legal Affairs at the Scotch Whisky Association, highlighted the importance of protecting Scotland’s premium products:

    Food and drink products strongly associated with their origin, like Scotch Whisky, carry a significant reputation based on their quality, authenticity and generations of investment. Those who attempt to take fraudulent advantage of that reputation will always face strong action, and the formation of this group is a significant step to help serve a strong message that this illegal activity won’t be tolerated.

    Members of the public can report suspected counterfeit goods to Police Scotland by calling 101 or anonymously through Crimestoppers.

    Updates to this page

    Published 24 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Security: Man sentenced for sexually abusing children

    Source: United Kingdom London Metropolitan Police

    A man has been jailed for more than 11 years for sexual abusing two children.

    Jamal Armstrong, 35 (30.12.89) of no fixed address, was sentenced to 11 years and nine months’ imprisonment at Woolwich Crown Court on Friday, 21 March.

    He was also handed a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and restraining order against the victims.

    Armstrong admitted two counts of sexual assault by penetration on a female under 13 and four counts of sexual assault on a female under 13 when he appeared before Woolwich Crown Court on Tuesday, 17 December 2024.

    The offences took place at an address in Greenwich between November 2023 and August 2024.

    The two victims, who were aged 12 at the time of the offences, were known to Armstrong. They came forward and reported the crimes to police in August 2024 and an investigation was swiftly launched by the Met’s Public Protection South East team.

    Armstrong was arrested by officers on Tuesday, 14 August 2024 while he was attempting to leave the country. He was later charged.

    Over four months, officers compiled numerous witness statements and a body of evidence, which ultimately led to a guilty plea.

    Specialist officers supported the victims throughout the investigation.

    Detective Constable Callum Boast, of the Met’s Public Protection South East team, said: “I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the victims in this case, who have been extremely courageous in coming forward to police and recounting the trauma of abuse they suffered because of Armstrong.

    “Armstrong is a dangerous individual who has carried out horrific crimes to two girls known to him. He will now serve a substantial amount of time behind bars for his despicable behaviour.

    “It cannot be underestimated the impact, both physical and mental, such sustained abuse will have had and I hope today’s sentence will give some sense of closure and peace to the victims and their loved ones.”

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Easier to apply, speedier processing and fewer hearings: how we made immigration appeals simpler, faster and more accessible

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Case study

    Easier to apply, speedier processing and fewer hearings: how we made immigration appeals simpler, faster and more accessible

    The First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum service handles approximately 50,000 appeals every year.

    These appeals come from people challenging Home Office decisions about: 

    • their immigration status 

    • permissions to stay in the UK 

    • deportation 

    • entry clearance 

    Before the Reform Programme, appellants and staff faced significant barriers.  

    • Paper forms were complex for appellants, especially if English wasn’t their first language 

    • Language barriers made it harder for applicants to fully understand how their appeal was progressing or robustly present their case 

    • Our people spent lots of time manually reviewing and handling paper forms, slowing processes down 

    Our aim, through the Reform Programme was to build a trusted service for users, maintaining fairness and increasing transparency and accessibility.  

    Benefits of the digital service 

    Our modernised service has transformed the appeals process, making it simpler, more accessible and delivering substantial improvements for those appealing decisions: 

    • Simplified applications with less form fields to complete 

    • Faster processing times through our streamlined digital system 

    • Plain English throughout the service, making it more accessible and less daunting 

    • Seamless integration with Home Office systems for better case management 

    • Reduced administrative burden on HMCTS by eliminating paper-based processes 

    • Centralised and consistent support through our new Service Centres 

    • Improved flexibility and transparency – users can track their appeal’s progress online at any time 

    • Reduced need for hearings through a new Home Office review stage 

    • Fewer postponed or adjourned hearings due to better evidence management 

    Our Digital Transformation 

    We started transforming the service in January 2019 with a carefully planned launch of our digital service at two hearing centres. We worked closely with legal representatives to test and refine the service. Survey feedback and engagement with users helped us improve the service. New features were also added before it was rolled out to other hearing centres. 

    The full digital service launched in February 2020, making the appeal process simpler, faster and more accessible for all of those using the service.  

    For Appellants 

    For an appellant in person the service is designed to be simple and accessible. During the design stage, we worked closely with charities throughout the UK including Justice, Migrant Help and the Refugee Council where we learnt more about the experience of appellants, including vulnerable users, which helped us to create a better service.  

    Improvements include: 

    • User-friendly online application system 

    • Clear communication at every stage 

    • Real-time case tracking 

    • Integrated fee processing 

    • Streamlined document management 

    • Automated notifications and reminders 

    Our efforts are working. By enabling people to use the digital service it has freed up more judicial time and resource for the most complex cases.   

    Learning Lessons 

    We also encountered and overcame several challenges: 

    • Initial more limited functions required temporary workarounds 

    • Users required additional support to adapt to new processes 

    • Deadlines and direction orders not being met needed to be resolved 

    Getting Support 

    We’re committed to ensuring access to justice for everyone in several ways, including: 

    • retaining and improving the paper process for appellants unable or less confident to use the digital service 

    • dedicated support at the Service Centre for the Immigration and Asylum service 

    • help with handling fees, listing appeal hearings and processing applications for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal  

    Feedback and Insights 

    Our transformation has received strong endorsement from senior leaders, including the former Senior President of Tribunals for England and Wales, who commented:  

    I see this as the model for all remaining tribunals. 

    Users report significantly improved experiences, particularly noting the simplified forms and clearer communication. Legal representatives have said that the digital service allows more time to speak with clients about issues about their case, making it easier to prepare an appeal in more detail. 

    Future Plans 

    We’re building on our success with ambitious plans. We will: 

    • expand the digital appeals service to include appeals where the appellant is either in prison or an immigration removal centre 

    • develop a new process for managing applications made on paper allowing these cases to mirror the new digital journey  

    • move all cases onto the digital platform 

    • continue to make service improvements based on user feedback 

    Stay Updated 

    For the latest guidance on appealing a benefits decision, visit: Appeal against a visa or immigration decision: Overview – GOV.UK 

    Keep up to date with the latest Tribunals news and information by subscribing to our e-alerts and newsletters.

    Updates to this page

    Published 24 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: How we made workplace justice simpler, faster and more accessible for everyone

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Case study

    How we made workplace justice simpler, faster and more accessible for everyone

    Employment Tribunals play a vital role in the UK justice system, resolving disputes between employers and employees.

    These disputes may be on issues such as: 

    • unfair dismissal 

    • discrimination 

    • redundancy 

    • whistleblowing claims 

    • breach of contract 

    Hearings involve evidence, witness testimony and legal arguments and are decided upon by a judge sitting alone, or by a panel made up of: 

    • a judge 

    • a panel member with a worker’s background 

    • a panel member with an employer’s background 

    Before the Reform Programme, there were a number of issues with the process: 

    • Panel members and HMCTS teams had to manually handle, transport and store high numbers of paper documents 

    • Transportation of this paper had environmental impacts and caused bottlenecks and delays to cases 

    • Forms weren’t intuitive or supportive, increasing the risk of human error 

    • Claimants and defendants often needed to travel to buildings for hearings 

    • Judges spent time making lower-level decisions, taking them away from complex matters that required them 

    Our modernisation programme aimed to transform an outdated paper-based system that was struggling to meet modern expectations into an efficient, user-friendly service fit for the 21st century. 

    Benefits 

    Since July 2022, more than 17,500 people have made digital claims using the modernised service. These people benefitted from:

    • an end-to-end digital journey for submitting and managing claims 

    • supportive, intuitive online forms and simplified procedures with reduced legal jargon, reducing the opportunity for errors 

    • the flexibility of real-time case tracking and 24/7 access to case files 

    • an increase in remote hearings which have reduced the need to spend time travelling, as well as additional environmental benefits  

    • faster progression of their case with streamlined administrative processes 

    Changes to regulations also meant legal officers could be appointed to support judges with certain functions which they could in turn do more effectively through improved technology. This step ensured more efficient use of judicial time for more complex matters. 

    Our digital transformation 

    The journey to reform Employment Tribunals began in 2021. Public consultation showed strong support for modernisation and we began the process by developing and testing the new digital claim form (ET1). 

    This would be the foundation of the modernised services, giving claimants (or their representatives) an accessible, intuitive form that they could access via GOV.UK and complete and submit online at any time. 

    We then gave users access to two key digital platforms: 

    • MyHMCTS – A specialised portal for legal professionals to manage and interact with case materials on behalf of their client 

    • CitizenUI – An accessible interface for members of the public to access directly 

    The national rollout completed in July 2024, transforming all Employment Tribunal offices. Throughout rollout, we’ve made sure our staff have felt supported and clear on the role they play in having a positive impact on the tribunal process.  

    The online service is popular too, with 80% of all single claims now made digitally. 

    Getting support 

    While digital innovation is important, we’ve maintained our commitment to accessibility: 

    • Paper options remain for those who need them 

    • Development of central printing facilities 

    • Comprehensive guidance materials 

    • Support for those without digital access or confidence 

    Feedback and insights 

    Users across the system have embraced the changes: 

    Access to the relevant documents without waiting for either the parties or the staff to provide them… it is a game changer. – Tribunal Judge 

    The system/portal has great potential and should be a very useful and efficient tool for both users and HMCTS. – Legal Professional 

    I don’t have to carry so much stuff around… I can get what I need usually from the electronic file. – Tribunal Staff Member 

    Supporting Sarah through her workplace dispute  

    “I was looking forward to starting my maternity leave and spending time with my family but after a few months, I realised my employer’s attitude towards me had changed.  

    Before I told them I was pregnant, I was regularly encouraged to apply for promotion and my boss would send me details of vacancies and training opportunities. This contact stopped while I was on maternity leave and I later discovered colleagues had applied for and been promoted into roles I would have been perfect for, but I was never told about them. I was excluded and I felt my employer had discriminated against me and I became extremely unhappy.  

    It was a daunting prospect, but I decided to make a claim to an Employment Tribunal. I’d never done anything like this before and I was very nervous but the process has been great so far. Because it’s all online, I can log on whenever I want and see how the claim is progressing. This has been really important as I rarely have the time to make phone calls in the day, chasing people up. I also thought I’d have to travel to hearings on a regular basis, but that hasn’t been the case.  

    I’m actually enjoying the process and I look forward to the claim being settled so I can move on with my life.”  

    Working together 

    We worked closely with: 

    • Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) – now the Department of Business and Trade – and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to consult on plans to reform the service 

    • Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) to make sure free advice would be available to those using the digital service 

    • the judiciary as a vital partner at all levels 

    Future plans 

    We’re committed to continuous improvement through: 

    • developing Service Centre support by end of 2025 

    • implementing ‘ListAssist’ software for improved case listing 

    • developing capability for handling multiple claims 

    • enhancing system performance and improving how to navigate it further 

    • introducing bulk printing and scanning facilities 

    • refining user-friendly interfaces based on feedback from our teams 

    Stay updated 

    Keep informed about Employment Tribunals through: 

    Updates to this page

    Published 24 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Common Platform: a modern digital case management system for the criminal justice system

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Case study

    Common Platform: a modern digital case management system for the criminal justice system

    Common Platform is a bespoke digital case management system, designed and developed by HMCTS, for the Crown and magistrates’ courts in England and Wales.

    It has brought together a range of different ‘legacy’ case management systems used in the criminal justice system under a single, unified platform. 

    Before Common Platform, our people and partners faced significant daily challenges:  

    • High volumes of physical documents using hours of court time to manually handle 

    • Significant cost to the taxpayer of printing and transporting paper between agencies, causing delays and inefficiencies throughout the justice system. 

    • Need for legal advisers and court clerks to manually record and process actions after the hearing, slowing access to justice down further for victims, defendants and witnesses 

    • Delays and inefficiencies in completing daily tasks like booking interpreters, requesting screens, or processing court orders required multiple manual steps across different systems, causing delay and inefficiency 

    Benefits 

    Over 2.3 million criminal cases have been managed on Common Platform as of February 2025 (source Reformed Services Management Information, March 2025), meaning a number of benefits for the people and parties involved 

    • The right people involved in a case can access the right, up to date information at any time of day or night  

    • Users and agencies receive notifications and real time updates to the case instantly  

    • Automation of manual processes mean quicker progress, reduced chance of error and better use of expertise 

    • Information and data is kept and shared safely through controls over who can see what based on their role 

    • Greater resilience as HMCTS teams and external parties can access cases from any location, ensuring service continuity even if even if they cannot physically be on site at a court 

    • Quicker processing and uploading through automated case management, particularly for Single Justice Procedure cases 

    • Greater efficiency by eliminating some paper-based processes  

    • Better data collection to inform improvements  

    By developing the system in-house, we have strengthened our expertise and have greater flexibility to adapt the system to changing needs and technological developments.  

    Case Management Evolution  

    The implementation of Common Platform into all Crown and magistrates’ courts has transformed how cases are managed in criminal courts: over 2.3 million cases managed through the system (source Reformed Services Management Information, March 2025), demonstrates its robust capability , demonstrates its robust capability  

    • single system replacing multiple outdated platforms, reduces complexity and training needs 

    • real-time case updates across all agencies, significantly reduces delays in information sharing 

    Our Digital Transformation 

    The journey to modernise our criminal courts began in 2011, with Common Platform representing the most significant technological transformation in the justice system’s history. Under the Reform Programme from 2016, we faced the challenge of replacing multiple outdated systems that weren’t communicating with each other.  

    It has been very challenging to introduce such a significant change: 

    • Teams across HMCTS had to adapt to new roles and ways of working while managing existing caseloads  

    • The pandemic was especially challenging, as court personnel managed dual systems in live courtrooms 

    • We did not always get it right, initially focusing too heavily on technical solutions rather than user experience 

    • We did not deliver everything we set out to – for example Crown Prosecution Service case management systems interface with Common Platform, rather than being a direct part of it as originally planned 

    This has been valuable learning and helped shape our approach. By placing users at the heart of development and using their feedback to directly inform plans, we have still achieved a lot.  

    Digital Documentation  

    The move to digital processes has transformed how documents are handled and shared:  

    • Defence advocates can complete crucial forms digitally in real-time, saving court time and reducing errors  

    • Self-service access for case materials, allowing users more control  

    • Automatic generation of notices, orders and warrants, speeding up justice delivery  

    • Digital submission of documents, cutting costs and environmental impact  

    • Seamless transfer of materials between magistrates’ and Crown Courts, reducing delays 

    Automated Processing  

    Reform has introduced significant automation to streamline court processes:  

    • Automated Track Case Management (ATCM) for Single Justice Procedure (SJP) cases, increasing efficiency  

    • Instant case creation and updates, eliminating manual data entry  

    • Automatic notifications to relevant parties, improving communication flow  

    • Electronic monitoring forms processed immediately, reducing processing time from hours to minutes  

    • Screen requests handled automatically, ensuring courtroom readiness 

    Better Information Sharing  

    The digital system has revolutionised information sharing between justice partners:  

    • Instant result notifications to police forces, enabling swift action  

    • Direct updates to the Legal Aid Agency, speeding up payments to advocates  

    • Immediate sharing of sentencing information with prisons and probation, improving offender management  

    • Role-based access ensuring secure information sharing, maintaining data protection  

    • Single point of contact through Courts and Tribunals Service Centres (CTSC), providing consistent support 

    System Performance  

    The platform has demonstrated significant improvements in efficiency and user satisfaction:  

    • Criminal courts across England and Wales now fully digital since August 2023, modernising justice delivery  

    • Defence practitioners can access case information instantly, improving preparation time  

    • Court personnel report significant time savings through automated processes 

    • positive feedback from judiciary, legal professionals and court personnel (January 2025) 

    This transformation represents a fundamental, technological change in the criminal courts moving all information digitally onto a shared system that all stakeholders can access, creating a more efficient, accessible and resilient justice system for all. 

    Working Together 

    We worked closely with: 

    • local police forces on rollout and delivery – police prosecutors are now able to upload direct to the system and self-serve 

    • CPS, who were a founding partner on setting up the system, improving their access to digital forms and requests 

    • All criminal justice system partners 

    • non police prosecutors (NPPs) – NPPs are now able to upload direct on to the system and self-serve 

    • Legal Aid Agency – ensuring defence advocates are paid swiftly for legal aid cases 

    • Courts and Tribunals Service Centres to offer best support and advice with ongoing cases to all stakeholders 

    • HM Prisons and Probation Service improving offender management, as they previously did not have access to the Libra legacy system 

    • Magistrates, legal advisers and judiciary as a vital partner at all levels to deliver a more streamlined system 

    Getting Support 

    We’ve established comprehensive support systems: 

    • dedicated Courts and Tribunals Service Centre (CTSC) providing customer support 

    • specialised training programmes for court personnel and system users 

    • regular system updates based on user feedback 

    • technical support available for all professional users 

    • service boards to monitor live performance and system changes  

    • permanent change function to prioritise and resource future improvements 

    Feedback and Insights 

    Users across the justice system have praised the new platform: 

    We have better oversight of cases, the triage process ensures that cases are listed appropriately and in the correct court, which means we are saving court time.

    Sharon Kostanjsek, Criminal Justice Unit Manager, Avon and Somerset Police 

    Dealing with a case on a single system, rather than at least 3 different systems as we did previously, is more practical and efficient.

    Jon Sugden, legal adviser  

    I like that producing orders is far simpler, now they are created directly from the result. There is no need to produce orders manually and email them or complete a lengthy electronic monitoring form.

    Mark Whiteley, formerly Wales transformation implementer 

    Future Plans 

    As we continue to develop the platform, we’re focusing on:  

    • enhanced data analytics capabilities, enabling evidence-based improvements  

    • further automation opportunities to continue increasing efficiency  

    • maintaining system flexibility to adapt to future needs  

    • continue developing new features based on user feedback 

    • transfer of system responsibility to HMCTS live service teams by March 2025 

    Stay Updated 

    Keep up to date with the latest criminal court news and information by subscribing to our e-alerts and newsletters.

    Updates to this page

    Published 24 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Modernising probate: easing the most challenging times through innovation

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Case study

    Modernising probate: easing the most challenging times through innovation

    Probate is the legal right to handle someone’s estate after they die.

    Before 2019, applications were made on paper meaning: 

    • a risk of human error when completing complex, inaccessible forms 

    • legal jargon was not explained well or in a user-friendly way 

    • an inefficient process for court staff, applicants and probate professionals when manually handling dozens of forms 

    • applicants needed to travel to compulsory in-person appointments at registry offices  

    • a lack of flexibility to suit modern ways of working for the courts and probate professionals 

    We wanted to create a more accessible, user-friendly service that works for everyone, whether they choose to apply online or use paper forms. 

    Benefits 

    The reformed service has transformed probate administration. Through over 1 million digital applications received since 2019, we’ve seen:  

    • positive environmental impact by eliminating over 25 million pieces of paper 

    • improved flow of legacy information from the probate service to charities, helping them to plan their vital work 

    • consistent, 24/7 access to the service from any device 

    • simplified language and streamlined processes 

    • increased flexibility with the digital statement of truth replacing inconvenient in-person oaths and the requirement for a ‘wet signature’ 

    • improved resilience, enabling continued granting of applications during the pandemic  

    Our digital transformation 

    The journey to modernise probate began in 2016 with extensive user research, leading to the 2019 launch of our digital service, making probate one of the first services to be reformed. We’ve created two tailored pathways. 

    For personal applicants we now have: 

    • a user-friendly online application via GOV.UK 

    • the ability to save and return to an online application 

    • step-by-step guidance throughout 

    • real-time application tracking 

    • the ability to complete digital statement of truth at home 

    • a service with clear, jargon-free language 

    Probate professionals now have a: 

    • comprehensive MyHMCTS platform for online probate applications 

    • collaborative team working features 

    • streamlined online payment system 

    • smoother integration with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) processes 

    • better way to manage workflows 

    • modern digital case files, accessible from any device 

    It’s clear that the digital service is working well: 

    • Digital applications have risen steeply from 17% in FY 19/20 to 80% April 2024 to December 2024  

    Getting support 

    For people who are less able or confident using online services, we’ve developed a comprehensive support system which includes: 

    • simplified paper forms 

    • a dedicated Digital Support service 

    • a specialist Service Centre for the probate service 

    • telephone support 

    • clear guidance on GOV.UK 

    • ensuring accessibility for all users 

    Feedback from service users 

    Applicants have told us what they think of the digital probate service: 

    It’s easy to use, fast and convenient. I found it so easy and efficient. It’s exactly what you want from an online government system – if only everything could be this easy!

    It was intuitive to use and the whole thing flowed from one section to the next really well. The way things are summarised at the end is very helpful. You can check it all before you send it and that’s reassuring.

    I’d been expecting sheets and sheets of questions – but that wasn’t the case. The instructions were clearly written and the way everything was set out was so user friendly. I think it took a couple of hours to complete.

    I initially thought the online service would be complicated and take some dealing with. I thought it would take me a long time to complete, but it didn’t take me long at all – an hour at the most.

    James’ story 

    “When James lost his father, he faced the daunting task of dealing with his estate. In the past, some of James’ friends who had gone through the probate process had told him it was paper-based, confusing, and filled with legal jargon that made it challenging for personal applicants like him, which worried him a lot. However, with the reformed digital service, James was able to apply for probate online at a time that suited him, without needing to visit a probate registry or deal with extensive paperwork. 

    Using the new digital service, James found the application process intuitive and efficient, allowing him to save his progress and return later. He could easily track his application status online, reducing uncertainty and providing reassurance during a difficult time. The digital statement of truth replaced the need for an in-person oath, saving James time and travel expenses. 

    Overall, the digital probate service provided James with a flexible, accessible, and user-friendly way to manage his father’s estate, making a challenging process much more manageable and allowing him to focus on what truly mattered.” 

    Working together 

    We work closely with: 

    • our probate service user group which includes Society of Trusts and Estates Practitioners, Institute of Legacy Management, The Law Society, Remember a Charity and the Institute of Chartered Accountants, England and Wales 

    • HMRC to streamline processes 

    Future plans 

    The journey to deliver an effective online service has not always been straight forward, and we’ve learned a lot. When we launched the service the combination of a planned fee increase, adapting to new ways of working and increased demand led to delays in applications being granted.  

    At its peak in August 2023, there was a backlog of 97,000 applications. The service is now concluding its recovery plan and the open caseload is around 37,000. The workable open caseload (where we have the information needed to progress the application) dropped by over 80% in the year to January 2025 to 9,856.  

    We’re now committed to continuously improving the service by: 

    • continuing to share information with the charity sector who rely on donations to carry out their important work 

    • working closely with probate professional representatives to improve the service 

    • improving notifications to make it easier for applicants to know what they need to send us 

    • streamlining inheritance tax processes with HMRC 

    • offering regional office drop-in sessions for probate professionals 

    • offering dedicated registrar appointments to progress complex applications 

    • improving notifications about application status 

    Stay updated 

    Updates to this page

    Published 24 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: ATCM: Over 1 million Single Justice Procedure cases moved from paper to digital

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Case study

    ATCM: Over 1 million Single Justice Procedure cases moved from paper to digital

    The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

    It allows prosecutors – who decide whether a case should be taken through the procedure – to deal with cases involving adult defendants accused of lesser offences that cannot result in a prison sentence, including: 

    • speeding 

    • driving without insurance 

    • TV license evasion 

    • evading train fares  

    It enables defendants, prosecutors and courts to reach a resolution to minor offences without having to attend court (unless they choose to do so). 

    A single magistrate, advised by a professional lawyer, deals with cases under SJP away from a courtroom. There’s no prosecutor or defendant present and they can deal with the case swiftly without tying up valuable court time.  

    Before 2017, SJP cases relied on paper-based processes and outdated technology meaning: 

    • court staff and magistrates manually handling lots of paper 

    • hours spent manually entering data which also increased the risk of human error 

    • inefficient sharing of information over email causing delays 

    • cost to the taxpayer associated with printing and transporting files from building to building    

    The system needed modernisation to handle summary, non-imprisonable offences more efficiently.  

    Benefits 

    By introducing Automated Track Case Management (ATCM), a digital service created to help process SJP cases on the Common Platform criminal case management system, we’ve transformed the process. This modernised, streamlined service now provides courts, prosecutors, and the public with a more efficient service. 

    Over 1.1 million SJP cases have been completed digitally between April 2017 and 31 December 2024, each benefiting through: 

    • faster justice giving prosecutors more capacity and enabling for defendants to move on more quickly with their lives 

    • quicker information sharing between court, prosecutor and defendant 

    • the ability to interact with cases more accessibly at any time and keep informed of progress 

    • greater flexibility to magistrates and court staff, enabling a more efficient running of the work coming into court 

    • better consistency of service being provided to all stakeholders, with Courts and Tribunals Service Centres dealing with day-to-day enquiries, rather than individual courts 

    • more effective use of physical court capacity providing better value for money to the taxpayer 

    • case lists published online and additional information made available to journalists, to support open justice 

    • significant reduction in the financial cost of printing and transporting paper files 

    Our digital transformation 

    ATCM represents a transformation of the SJP system. The digital platform now manages cases from initial receipt through to the magistrate’s decision, while providing transparent access to case outcomes, referrals, and costs awarded to all stakeholders in the process, as well as journalists. 

    By creating a digital platform under the Reform Programme we’ve enabled: 

    • end-to-end digital case management from beginning of the process to decision, allowing all stakeholders to access the information they need in real time 

    • direct digital case uploading by prosecutors including DVLA, TV Licensing, TfL and local police forces 

    • online plea submissions, where defendants can upload supporting information  

    • real-time tracking of the progress made by a case 

    • automated notification system for case decisions to all stakeholders involved in the process, and also to journalists 

    • journalists can obtain detailed information (prosecution facts and defence mitigation) digitally 

    • digital access for magistrates to enter decisions directly into the system 

    • integrated support from Courts and Tribunals Service Centre (CTSC) 

    This benefits a range of people involved in the process: 

    • Prosecutors including the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, TV Licensing, and police forces can now upload cases directly to the system 

    • Defendants can submit pleas and access supporting information online 

    • Magistrates and legal advisers can access case details, record decisions, generate orders and notices, and update driver records all through one unified platform 

    • Journalists receive more information and do not have to travel to courts in person in order to report on cases 

    Better information sharing 

    The system’s role-based access ensures users only see information relevant to their needs, eliminating the need for paper documentation and reducing manual data entry.  

    Transparency is maintained through online publication of court lists, while journalists can access both upcoming hearing lists and court records, enabling scrutiny and reporting of outcomes to the public. 

    Take up of the digital service has been strong, with the volume of digital cases between April 2019 and March 2023 more than doubling.

    Since April 2022, 80% of people going through the single justice service are satisfied with the service they received.  

    Working together 

    We have consulted and collaborated with a number of justice partners to design, test and implement Automated Track Case Management, the digital system developed to administer Single Justice Procedure cases online: 

    • local police forces on rollout and delivery – police prosecutors are now able to upload direct to the system and self-serve 

    • all criminal justice system partners  

    • non police prosecutors (NPPs) – these are now digital by default and onboarding for NPPs will accelerate in 2025/2026 

    • Courts and Tribunals Service Centres to offer best support and advice with ongoing cases to all stakeholders 

    • magistrates, legal advisers and judiciary as a vital partner to deliver a more streamlined system 

    Getting support 

    The Courts and Tribunals Service Centres (CTSC) provide comprehensive assistance to all users. Key improvements include: 

    • dedicated support for defendants, prosecutors, and journalists 

    • consistent service levels across all interactions 

    • reduced wait times from over an hour to 15 minutes for phone queries 

    • new online self-endorsement system for driving licence details 

    Feedback and insights 

    Andrew Morris, Acting Head of Legal Operations for Wales, reflected:

    “It increases flexibility, is time efficient, more eco-friendly, and saves courtroom space for dealing with more serious offences.” 

    West Yorkshire Police Unit Operations Manager, Debbie Taylor, emphasised the impact:

    “Before ATCM and Common Platform, we did 600 SJP cases a week. In October 2024, it’s now gone up to 650 cases a week – and we are on track to increase to a thousand by June or July 2025.”   

    Future plans 

    We plan to continue to evolve the system including: 

    • completing the digital service rollout to all police forces nationwide engaging new non–police prosecutors including the Environment Agency and transport companies 

    • holding a comprehensive evaluation of the system’s sustainability and effectiveness 

    • improving media access and transparency measures – publishing more data than ever before, as well as inviting journalists to observe SJP sessions 

    • developing enhanced self-service options for users 

    • implementing continuous technological improvements 

    Stay updated 

    Keep up to date with the latest criminal court news and information by subscribing to our e-alerts and newsletters.  

    You can read more about how the Single Justice Procedure works by visiting: Explaining the Single Justice Procedure in the magistrates’ court – Inside HMCTS 

    Updates to this page

    Published 24 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Pension Age Disability Payment opens for applications in 13 local authority areas

    Source: Scottish Government

    New Scottish benefit for pensioners extends to more areas ahead of national roll out 

    A new benefit for pensioners is now open for applications in 13 more local authority areas in Scotland.   

    Pension Age Disability Payment has been extended to Aberdeenshire, Angus, Clackmannanshire, Dundee City, Falkirk, Fife, Moray, Na h-Eileanan Siar (Western Isles), Perth and Kinross and Stirling.  

     It is also now available in all three Ayrshire local authority areas – East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire.   

    The payment first launched in five local authority areas on 21 October 2024  and will be available throughout Scotland from 22 April this year.  

    Pension Age Disability Payment is for disabled people or those with a long-term health condition that means they need help looking after themselves or supervision to stay safe. It is available to people of State Pension age and is also available to pensioners who are terminally ill.  

    It is not means-tested and is worth between £290 and £434 a month depending on the needs of the person who gets it (increasing to between £295 and £441 a month from 1 April 2025).   

    Pension Age Disability Payment is replacing Attendance Allowance from the Department for Work and Pensions in Scotland. Social Security Scotland has started transferring the awards of 169,000 people in Scotland who currently receive Attendance Allowance to the new benefit.    

    People currently getting Attendance Allowance do not need to take any action; the transfer will happen automatically in phases throughout 2025. Everyone will continue to receive their payments on time and in the right amount.   

    Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said:  

    “I urge anyone who thinks they could be eligible for Pension Age Disability Payment to apply.

    “It is vital older people who are disabled, terminally ill people or who have care needs get the money they need to help them look after themselves, stay safe and live with dignity.

    “The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring everyone gets the financial support they’re entitled to and this has not changed following the UK Government’s announcement on welfare.”

    Henry Simmons, Alzheimer Scotland’s Chief Executive said:

    “It’s great to see Pension Age Disability Payment being rolled out across more areas. At the Brain Health and Dementia Resource Centre, we know that living with dementia leads to extra costs so it’s important that those affected can access the financial support they need, when they need it.

    “The application support that Social Security Scotland provide is vital for people who are already dealing with the emotional and practical challenges of living with dementia.

    “The availability of this support will make a positive difference to people living with dementia, improving their ability to live well with their condition.” 

    More information about Pension Age Disability Payment including who is eligible and how to apply can be found at: www.mygov.scot/pensiondisability  

    Background  

    Pension Age Disability Payment is replacing Attendance Allowance in Scotland. People in Scotland who are getting Attendance Allowance from the Department for Work and Pensions do not need to do anything as their award transfer will happen automatically. Social Security Scotland will write to people to let them know when this is happening and when this is complete. Social Security Scotland aims to complete case transfer for everyone by the end of 2025. Until people receive the letter from Social Security Scotland to tell them their transfer is complete, they should continue to report any change in circumstances, including a terminal illness diagnosis, to the Department for Work and Pensions.

    Pension Age Disability Payment launched on 21 October 2024 in five pilot areas – Aberdeen City, Argyll and Bute, Highland, Orkney and Shetland. It has rolled out to 13 more areas – Aberdeenshire, Angus, Clackmannanshire, Dundee City, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Fife, Moray, Na h-Eileanan Siar (Western Isles), North Ayrshire, Perth and Kinross, South Ayrshire and Stirling. The payment will be available throughout Scotland from 22 April 2025.   

    Eligible people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness are automatically entitled to the higher rate of care and can apply under special rules for terminal illness. This means that Social Security Scotland will prioritise their application. People who are already getting Pension Age Disability Payment who later receive a terminal illness diagnosis can also report this diagnosis under the special rules for terminal illness.   

    Pension Age Disability Payment was designed with the people who will be eligible for the benefit and those who support them. Improvements include a streamlined process for people to nominate a third-party representative who can support them in their interactions with Social Security Scotland.  

    Social Security Scotland can help people to apply, with face-to-face support available from advisers based in communities across the country.  

    Help is also available from independent advocacy service Voiceability who are funded by the Scottish Government to help disabled people applying for devolved benefits.  

    Social Security Scotland also has a separate, accelerated application process for people who are terminally ill. This is open to any eligible person who has a terminal diagnosis, no matter how long they’re expected to live. This is different to the Department for Work and Pensions, who only class someone as terminally ill if they are expected to live for 12 months or less. Eligible people automatically get the highest possible amount of Pension Age Disability Payment.   

    The Scottish Government has made it easier for people to nominate someone to support them in their engagement with Social Security Scotland – something that older disabled people told us was important to them.   

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Security: Man charged following fatal stabbing in Brixton

    Source: United Kingdom London Metropolitan Police

    A man has been charged with murder following the death of a man in Brixton.

    Ibrahim Gonclaves-Cumare, 30 (15.03.1995) of no fixed address was charged with murder on Sunday, 23 March in connection with the death of a 34-year old man who has since been formally identified as Troy Ramsundar.

    Ibrahim has been remanded in custody to appear at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 24 March.

    Police were called at approximately 05:10hrs on Thursday, 20 March to reports of a man suffering a stab injury in Brixton Road, SW9.

    Officers and London Ambulance Service attended but despite their efforts Troy sadly died at the scene, his family continues to receive support from specialist officers.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN for Political-Security Community met with the Head of ICRC Regional Delegation for Indonesia and Timor-Leste

    Source: ASEAN

    Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN for ASEAN Political-Security Community, Dato’ Astanah Abdul Aziz met with Mr. Vincent Raymond Ochilet, Head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Regional Delegation for Indonesia and Timor-Leste at the ASEAN Headquarters/ASEAN Secretariat today. They discussed efforts to foster connections and facilitate cooperation between ASEAN and its partners in advancing International Humanitarian Law through dialogue and capacity-building, including through utilising ASEAN-led mechanisms.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: AI INFRINGEMENT ALERT – NZ Authors books scraped in LibGEN dataset

    Source: New Zealand Society of Authors Te Puni Kaituhi o Aotearoa (PEN NZ)

    NZ Authors books scraped in LibGEN dataset – NZSA condemns authors intellectual property theft
     
    March 24, 2025 – Over the weekend, The Atlantic published a search tool that allows authors around the world to check if their works have been used in LibGen, an illegal pirate site Artificial Intelligence (AI) companies copied for their AI systems.

    This is a similar tool to the one that journalist Alex Reisner made available for the Books3 AI training dataset last year, but this new list has more than 7.5 million books copied by Meta, Open AI and other AI companies for their AI systems. It is not clear whether Meta Downloaded and used every book in LibGen.

    Thousands of books by NZ writers are included in this latest theft of intellectual property by Big Tech. NZ authors average incomes from their writing is circa $16k per year (Horizon Writers Survey, 2021) and our writers should not be the ones deprived of lost revenue in the development of this new technology. Big Tech can afford to pay licence fees to legally use the content they need to train their AI language models.

    Meta and other AI companies know exactly what they are doing

    AI companies need books for their quality writing, style, expression, long-form narration and content and use this to train their AI models. It appears those companies would rather steal that content than ask and pay for the use of it, as they do all other necessary components, costs and compliance required to run their businesses, such as electricity, wages, government health and safety requirements, and programming.

    Pirate Sites Are Illegal Sources of Books for AI Training 

    Author societies around the world are collaborating with each other, publishers and governments to combat major piracy websites that cost authors millions in lost sales and licence fees.

    In the US, collective action took down Z-Library and its 250 mirror sites and successfully sued Kiss Library, and assisted publishers in actions against LibGen, resulting in blocked domains In the US and multi-million-dollar fines. These sites remain challenging to permanently eliminate as they operate from Russia or Ukraine, and quickly migrate to new domains when blocked. New Zealand currently does not have legislation that allows site blocking to protect intellectual property and our creative industries.
     
    Around the globe Copyright Law is being reviewed and updated to tackle AI development and intellectual property rights. In NZ, The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is the Ministry responsible for the Copyright Act review. MBIE is planning to progress formal consultation in 2025 with the creative industries and the public on Copyright legislation including AI.This is demonstrably urgent.

    NZSA is collating a list of all NZ books from NZSA members and other writers affected by this latest instance of mass piracy.

    The New Zealand Society of Authors Te Puni Kaituhi o Aotearoa (PEN NZ) strongly condemns the appropriation of New Zealand Aotearoa authors intellectual property. This unauthorised use is intellectual property theft by Big Tech that infringes existing legislation. The imbalance of power between individual authors defending their property rights versus Big Tech money and might is alarming. The unsanctioned use of work is legally indefensible, and amoral. For the creative industries of Aotearoa to thrive we need robust copyright law, protections and enforcement mechanisms, and appropriate penalties for infringement.

    Article for reference:

    How the Emerging Market for AI Training Data is Eroding Big Tech’s ‘Fair Use’ US Law Copyright Defense: https://authors.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=905a5275ec5c023659502ec21&id=badb3ee21e&e=466373ae7c
    CLNZ/NZSA position statement on AI HERE: https://authors.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=905a5275ec5c023659502ec21&id=bbcb427614&e=466373ae7c

    About NZSA
    The NZSA represents over 1,800 writers in New Zealand. We offer support through advocacy and representation, professional development, information and guidance on publishing and the literary arts, administer prizes and awards and contract/business advice. We work to protect authors incomes and offer memberships for writers at all stages of their careers, including students. Our many assessment and mentorship programmes supported by Creative New Zealand. NZSA is affiliated to International PEN, a voice that upholds freedom of speech and protests against writers falsely silenced and imprisoned around the world. NZSA collaborates across the book sector with other organisations to make NZ books and NZ writers more visible. The NZSA is a not for profit incorporated society and a registered charity in Aotearoa.
    www.authors.org.nz

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Digital crime has more than doubled since 2020

    Source: Switzerland – Department of Home Affairs

    In 2024, the police registered a total of 563 633 offences under the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC). This represents an increase of about 8% over the previous year. Broken down by type of crime, the figures show a continuation of the strong upward trend in digital crime seen in recent years. There were 8% more offences against property than in 2023. Serious violent offences increased for the third year in a row (+19%). These are some of the findings of the Police Crime Statistics of the Federal Statistical Office (FSO).

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Police pleased with Fringe revellers

    Source: New South Wales – News

    South Australia Police (SAPOL) has reviewed the behaviour of 2025 Fringe Festival attendees and is pleased overall – despite the removal of 50 people from the area.

    Operation Adelaide Fringe Festival 2025 was held from 21 February to 23 March and saw the deployment of foot and bicycle patrols, along with police horses, dogs and Public Transport Safety Branch members to focus on behaviour, liquor licensing compliance, and public safety.

    The ‘Adelaide Fringe Festival 2025’ Declared Public Precinct (DPP) was also in place for a 12-hour period from 6pm to 6am every night during the Fringe period, in addition to the city-west DPP already in place.

    “The event appears to have been extremely well attended, and I am pleased, as the Police Commander, to report that despite a few minor behavioural matters, most people in attendance were extremely well behaved,” Superintendent Scott Denny said.

    “A combination of additional police, the Declared Public Precinct, the extremely well organised event and great behaviour by the public saw a very successful and entertaining Fringe event yet again.

    “Police reported that the interactions with the public were friendly which again highlights how wonderful this event is. Pleasingly there were no significant incidents of note.”

    Fringe DPP results included:

    • Number of people removed from Fringe DPP- 50
    • Number of people issued with Licensed Premises Barring Orders within DPP- 0
    • Number of expiation notices issued for Offensive/Disorderly in Fringe DPP- 8
    • Number of people searched with a metal detector in the Fringe DPP- 83
    • Number of weapons located from a metal detector search in Fringe DPP- 0
    • Number of people arrested for breaching of Fringe DPP- 1
    • Number of people arrested/reported in Fringe DPP- 6

    Anecdotally, police reported large numbers of the public in the CBD each night, swelling extensively in the East End on Friday and Saturday nights being the peak times for the demand of police resources. Festival organisers announced the sale of one million tickets for the 2025 event.

    “Thank you to all involved in keeping festival goers safe for another year,” Superintendent Denny added.

    “It’s great to see the city come alive with many locals and visitors, and we look forward to being part of next year’s event.”

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Man in custody following threats made, Sydenham

    Source: New Zealand Police (National News)

    Please attribute to Superintendent Lane Todd, Canterbury Metro Area Commander:

    One man has been taken into custody without incident in Sydenham after making threats earlier this afternoon.

    The address will now be cleared as a precaution to ensure there is no ongoing risk to the public before cordons are stood down.

    Police would like to thank the Sydenham community for their patience and understanding as we worked through the afternoon to resolve this safely for all.

    ENDS

    Issued by Police Media Centre

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Road Closed, SH1, Taihape

    Source: New Zealand Police (District News)

    State Highway One is closed following a serious crash this evening.

    Emergency services were alerted to the single vehicle crash near Spooners Hill Road at around 4.40pm.

    Two people are reported to have injuries.

    The road is closed while emergency services are at the scene and diversions are in place.

    Motorists are advised to avoid the area and expect delays.

    ENDS

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Security of payment: preventing enforcement of adjudicated amounts to contractors in precarious financial positions

    Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

    Stays granted even if contractors are not insolvent 6 min read

    The Queensland Supreme Court has granted a stay preventing enforcement of a judgment debt obtained by a contractor in reliance upon an adjudication decision pursuant to the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (BIF Act).

    In this Insight, we consider Taringa Property Group Pty Ltd v Kenik Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 327 and similar cases in NSW and Victoria, with a focus on two key questions:

    • can contractors in liquidation benefit from security of payment legislation?
    • how do courts approach stay applications made by the principal where the contractor is solvent, but in a precarious financial position?

    Key takeaways 

    • Taringa Property Group is a welcome development for principals in Queensland as it lays the foundation for seeking a stay, even when a contractor is not in liquidation.
    • Insolvency remains a major challenge for contractors, who may now experience more difficulties in enforcing payment of adjudicated amounts which can, in turn, exacerbate cash flow problems.
    • Courts maintain a wide discretion and will consider each stay application on its own facts and circumstances—however, a major consideration is how long the stay will likely be.
    • We expect to see an increase in security of payment adjudication and related court litigation as a result of the likely reforms in Victoria.

    Taringa Property Group Pty Ltd v Kenik Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 327

    TPG (Principal) engaged Kenik (Contractor) to design and construct a retail complex at Taringa.

    The contract ended in August 2023 and the Contractor made a final payment claim in September 2023 for $9.7 million. Following the Principal issuing a payment schedule (with a scheduled amount of nil), the Contractor made an adjudication application under the BIF Act, where the adjudicator awarded the Contractor $4.2 million. The Contractor obtained judgment in respect of the adjudicated amount.

    The Principal commenced two applications in the Queensland Supreme Court:

    • First, seeking to have the adjudication decision declared void for jurisdictional error or, in the alternative, a stay of the judgment debt.
    • Second, seeking final relief relating to the contract (specifically, that the Contractor is not entitled to retain the adjudicated amount).

    The court warned that considerable caution should be given to the granting of the stay as it detracts from the primary purpose of the BIF Act in enabling a contractor to be paid.1 Any risk of non‑recovery of payments made under the BIF Act as a consequence of the financial failure of the contractor after the receipt of the BIF payment is generally to lie with the principal.2

    The court gave three examples of circumstances of when a stay might be granted:3

    • where the contractor has taken steps to make the task of recovering any BIF payment more difficult for the principal by way of restructuring its financial affairs;
    • where the contractor engages in tactics to delay the resolution of the substantive proceeding;4 or
    • where the contractor is in liquidation or in some form of external administration due to liquidity issues at the time the BIF payment would otherwise be made.

    Essentially, there needs to be a real risk that the Principal will suffer prejudice or damage if a stay is not granted. However, Justice Hindman rejected the proposition that the risk must reach the level of certainty before a stay might be granted—in other words, the threshold is not so high that the contractor must actually be in external administration or must be positively proved to be hopelessly or otherwise insolvent.5

    Justice Hindman found ‘undisputed’ evidence of serious financial instability and that, if a stay is granted, the Contractor is most likely to financially fail.6 It was further observed that, even if it received the adjudicated amount, the Contractor was still likely to go into external administration as it would be insufficient to satisfy its debts.

    The court concluded that if the stay was refused, there would be a very high risk that the Contractor would not be able to repay the adjudicated amount should the Principal succeed in its claim for final relief. The practical effect of refusing the stay would be to transform the Contractor’s interim entitlement under the BIF Act into a final payment, unable to be recovered by the Principal, and at odds with the intended operation of the BIF Act.

    In a separate proceeding following this decision, a creditor of the Contractor successfully obtained an order that the Contractor be wound up.7

    The decision is currently under appeal.

    Discussion 

    Insolvency has been a major challenge for contractors, who are experiencing obstacles at every turn—high inflation, regulatory reforms, supply-chain issues, delayed effects of the pandemic, labour shortages etc. The main purpose of the BIF Act (and equivalent acts) is to help contractors be paid for the work they do, so stays to delay payment to contractors may have significant consequences and could potentially increase insolvency rates in the industry.

    New South Wales

    Since 2019, NSW has had a prohibition on companies in liquidation using the security of payment process8—the only jurisdiction in Australia to have such an express carveout. Companies in liquidation may not serve or enforce payment claims, or make applications for adjudication of a payment claim.

    Where contractors are not in liquidation, courts have been cautious in light of the policy of the statute and have undertaken a close analysis of the extent or certainty of the risk of prejudice or damage if a stay is not granted. Nevertheless, courts have been ready and willing to grant stays if the failure to do so would have the practical effect of making permanent that which, clearly enough, the legislature intended to be only interim.9

    Recently, the NSW Supreme Court noted that, although it does make it harder to obtain a stay when the contractor is not in liquidation, it by no means follows that a stay cannot be obtained unless it is.10

    The court further observed that:

    ‘up to a point, the more financial difficulty the contractor is in, the less reason there is for granting a stay, as the more likely it will be that the grant of such a stay will result in the contractor being deprived of the cashflow which is needed to sustain its operations. It is only when insolvency becomes inevitable, or at least highly probable, that the dynamics reverse because of the possibility that an interim payment will effectively become final.’11

    Indeed, in another recent decision, the court considered that even a ‘significant risk’ was not sufficiently certain of financial difficulty such that a stay should be granted.12 We note, however, in that case the contractor continued to trade, unlike the contractor in Taringa Property Group.

    The decision in Taringa Property Group, although the first of its kind in Queensland, is consistent with the approach taken in NSW.

    Victoria

    Victorian principals can still run the argument that contractors in liquidation may not use the payment regime, though this is unlikely to be without serious consideration by the courts due to conflicting decisions on this issue.13

    There is also a question of whether, in seeking a stay against a contractor who is not in liquidation, a principal is required to show that there is more than a real risk the contractor would not be able to repay the adjudicated amount in order to succeed.14

    At least one decision has granted such a stay, without requiring that higher standard.15 In that case, the stay was justified—save the fact of the parlous financial circumstances of the contractor—on the basis that it would be limited in time, and therefore minimal in the prejudice it caused the contractor.16 The likely takeaway is that, where the court is able to grant the stay on conditions or for a limited time period, application of a higher standard in the form of more than a real risk may be less relevant.

    On a wider note, principals in Victoria should be prepared to engage in more and broader adjudications in the near future as a result of the likely reforms to the current Victorian act. Consequently, it is expected that there will be an increase in proceedings seeking final determination of rights under contract and corresponding stay applications.

    To read more about Victoria’s proposed reforms, including the removal of Victoria’s unique ‘excluded amounts’ regime, removal of the concept of ‘reference dates’, an introduction of a blackout period and the introduction of a new provision allowing notice-based time bars to be declared unfair, see Government support for security of payment reform in Victoria.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Name release: South Wairarapa homicide

    Source: New Zealand Police (National News)

    Police can now release the name of the man who died after being shot in Featherston on Saturday 22 March.

    He was 23-year-old Doreion Peri Ropata Hard, from Masterton.

    Two men, aged 23 and 25, appeared in the Wellington District Court today, charged with murder.

    They will next appear in the High Court at Wellington, on 11 April.

    Further charges are being considered against the pair.

    Police are still appealing for anyone with information to please speak to us.

    If you have any information that may assist, please contact us via 105 either over the phone or online.

    Please reference Operation Ascot – reference number 250322/8281.

    ENDS

    Issued by Police Media Centre

    MIL OSI New Zealand News