Court: Elephants Can't Pursue their Release from Colorado Zoo Because they're Not Human

FILE - This undated photo provided by the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo shows elephants Kimba, front, and Lucky, back, at the Zoo in Colorado Springs, Colo. (Cheyenne Mountain Zoo via AP, File)
FILE - This undated photo provided by the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo shows elephants Kimba, front, and Lucky, back, at the Zoo in Colorado Springs, Colo. (Cheyenne Mountain Zoo via AP, File)
TT

Court: Elephants Can't Pursue their Release from Colorado Zoo Because they're Not Human

FILE - This undated photo provided by the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo shows elephants Kimba, front, and Lucky, back, at the Zoo in Colorado Springs, Colo. (Cheyenne Mountain Zoo via AP, File)
FILE - This undated photo provided by the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo shows elephants Kimba, front, and Lucky, back, at the Zoo in Colorado Springs, Colo. (Cheyenne Mountain Zoo via AP, File)

Five elephants at a Colorado zoo may be “majestic” but, since they're not human, they do not have the legal right to pursue their release, Colorado’s highest court said Tuesday.
The ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court follows a similar court defeat in New York in 2022 for an elephant named Happy at the Bronx Zoo in a case brought by an animal rights group. Rulings in favor of the animals would have allowed lawyers for both Happy and the elephants at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs — Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou and Jambo — to pursue a long-held legal process for prisoners to challenge their detention and possibly be sent to live in an elephant sanctuary instead, The Associated Press reported.
“It bears noting that the narrow legal question before this court does not turn on our regard for these majestic animals generally or these five elephants specifically. Instead, the legal question here boils down to whether an elephant is a person as that term is used in the habeas corpus statute. And because an elephant is not a person, the elephants here do not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim,” the court said in its ruling.
The same animal rights group that tried to win Happy’s release, the Nonhuman Rights Project, also brought the case in Colorado.
The group argued that the Colorado elephants, born in the wild in Africa, have shown signs of brain damage because the zoo is essentially a prison for such intelligent and social creatures, known to roam for miles a day. It wanted the animals released to one of the two accredited elephant sanctuaries in the United States because the group doesn’t think they can no longer live in the wild.
The zoo argued moving the elephants and potentially placing them with new animals would be cruel at their age, possibly causing unnecessary stress. It said they aren’t used to being in larger herds and, based on the zoo's observations, the elephants don’t have the skills or desire to join one.
In a statement, the Nonhuman Rights Project said the latest ruling "perpetuates a clear injustice” and predicted future courts would reject the idea that only humans have a right to liberty.
“As with other social justice movements, early losses are expected as we challenge an entrenched status quo that has allowed Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo to be relegated to a lifetime of mental and physical suffering,” it said.



Victory for Prince Harry as Murdoch Papers Admits Wrongdoing by Sun 

Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex steps out of a car, outside the Rolls Building of the High Court in London, Britain June 7, 2023. (Reuters)
Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex steps out of a car, outside the Rolls Building of the High Court in London, Britain June 7, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

Victory for Prince Harry as Murdoch Papers Admits Wrongdoing by Sun 

Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex steps out of a car, outside the Rolls Building of the High Court in London, Britain June 7, 2023. (Reuters)
Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex steps out of a car, outside the Rolls Building of the High Court in London, Britain June 7, 2023. (Reuters)

Prince Harry settled his privacy claim against Rupert Murdoch's UK newspaper group on Wednesday after the publisher admitted unlawful actions at its Sun tabloid for the first time, bringing the fiercely-contested legal battle to a dramatic end.

In a stunning victory for Harry, 40, the younger son of King Charles, News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World, also admitted it had intruded into the private life of his late mother, Princess Diana.

Harry's lawyer, David Sherborne, said the publisher had agreed to pay the prince substantial damages. A source familiar with the settlement said it involved an eight-figure sum.

Harry had been suing NGN at the High Court in London, accusing its newspapers of unlawfully obtaining private information about him from 1996 until 2011.

The trial to consider the royal's case, and a similar lawsuit from former senior British lawmaker Tom Watson, was due to start on Tuesday but following last-gasp talks, the two sides reached a settlement, with NGN saying there had been wrongdoing at The Sun, something it had denied for years.

"NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun," Sherborne said.

"NGN further apologizes to the Duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years."

ACCOUNTABILITY

NGN has paid out hundreds of millions of pounds to victims of phone-hacking and other unlawful information gathering by the News of the World, and settled more than 1,300 lawsuits involving celebrities, politicians, well-known sports figures and ordinary people who were connected to them or major events.

But it had always rejected any claims that there was wrongdoing at The Sun newspaper, or that any senior figures knew about it or tried to cover it up, as Harry's lawsuit alleges.

Harry said his mission was to get the truth and accountability, after other claimants settled cases to avoid the risk of a multi-million-pound legal bill that could be imposed even if they won in court but rejected NGN's offer.

He said the reason he had not settled was because his lawsuit was not about money, but because he wanted the publishers' executives and editors to be held to account and to admit their wrongdoing.