Pakistan court Dismisses Sarabjit's plea

The balance between life and death once again swung for Sarbjit Singh, sentenced to death by a Pakistani court in 1990 on charges of being a terrorist. On Wednesday a Pakistani court again rejected his review petition. His lawyer didn't turn up, apparently because he hasn't been paid his fees.

In India, Sarabjit's family was again left pleading for his life.

Said his wife Sukhpreet Kaur: "I would like to request both the governments to please come to an agreement and release my husband who is innocent and has suffered a lot."

So, what are Sarabjit Singh's options now?

First, if his lawyer submits an application in the court giving reasons why he could not appear and ask for another hearing of the review petition.

Second, the presidential pardon -- that is if the President Asif Ali Zardari accepts his mercy petition.

And third, if the Pakistan government passes the law of commuting all death sentences to life imprisonment. The law was proposed last year by the PPP-led government.

"We will appeal this decision," says Rana Abdul Hamid, Sarabjit's former lawyer.

Sarbjit Singh has spent the past few years between hope and despair. This latest development just another blow to a man who is fighting for a second chance.

Cancer sperm men win court Battle

Six male cancer patients have been told they can claim damages after a hospital freezer broke down and destroyed their frozen sperm.

Five said they had suffered psychiatric problems as a result of the incident at Southmead Hospital in Bristol.

The Court of Appeal ruled the samples, given after the patients were warned chemotherapy could make them infertile, belonged to the men.

The judges ruled the six men could therefore claim damages for the loss.

Mental distress

The men who did not wish to be named, had assumed their prospects of fathering children had been destroyed.

Some were not left infertile by the treatment but one has since died.

The hospital trust had denied liability, claiming the sperm samples were not property in the legal sense and there could be no damages claim.

But in his ruling, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said: "The men had ownership of the sperm.

"The sole object of their ejaculation of the sperm was that, in certain events, it might later be used."

Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke and Lord Justice Wilson overturned a County Court judge's ruling which found the men had no claim against North Bristol NHS Trust.

The three appeal judges ruled the men could now claim for psychiatric injury or mental distress. This hearing will now be heard at Exeter County Court.

In his ruling, Lord Judge said: "The (hospital) unit extended, and broke, a particular promise to the men, namely that the sperm 'will be stored... at minus 196°C'.

"The appeals raise interesting questions about the application of common law principles to the ever-expanding frontiers of medical science."