Hugh O Donoghue. Year of Call: 2004

Transcription

1 Hugh O Donoghue Year of Call: 2004 Hugh O Donoghue is both admitted and practices in England and Wales as well as in Ireland. He has a well-deserved reputation as a formidable and astute advocate. His areas of practice include: Crime including Courts Martial Regulation Judicial Review Professional Negligence International, Administrative and Human Rights Military Law Injunctive including Worldwide Freezing Orders Misfeasance in Public Office, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Practice includes criminal and civil and extends to extensive advisory work in public and international (Extradition, EU law and Global human rights). Hugh is renowned for his outstanding abilities in appeals and regularly appears in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court (Extradition, Human Rights, Judicial Review and Civil). Hugh maintains that civil and criminal practice is complimentary each area providing mutually supporting competences. Hugh's transfer to the UK from Ireland in 2005 coincides with his focus in the International field and the growth of his reputation at the Bar as a meticulous advocate. Hugh was Chair of the EU and International Affairs of the Law Society in Ireland in the ; Vice-Chair Member of the Irish Law Society Standing Committee on Curriculum Development (CDU) Vice-Chair He represented Ireland on the prestigious Union International du Notariat Latin between 2005 and He is a member of the Association of Law Teachers (IALT) and Canon La Society of England and Wales and is currently accredited by OHIM (EU). He is a member of the South East Circuit. Hugh has lectured extensively in International Human Rights protection and is an associate faculty member of the Law School of the Irish Law Society. He lectured in Warsaw (2003) and also in South Africa ( ) where he contributed to a programme extensively funded by the Irish Government to assist local lawyers become skilled in the rewarding but monopolised commercial field. His continuing interest in education is reflected in a lecture at the College of Law Bloomsbury in London on the topic of Military Law. 1

2 Civil: MacKew v Moore, High Court, 2012 WL : Lead counsel in important Freeze Order injunction proceedings. The court had to decide in circumstances where the funds were banked in Switzerland whether the High Court in London had jurisdiction ahead of Swiss Courts. Extensive argument on the scope and application of the 2007 Lugano Convention was a big feature with the point being resolved in line with Mr. O Donoghue s submissions on international law. Leading City firm DWFM Beckman instructed. General Crime R v Bingelis and 7 Others (Crown Court at Chelmsford). Car- ringing case. This prosecution involved an alleged conspiracy to clone and sell stolen cars. The conspiracy was described by the Prosecution as being very sophisticated and complex. High value cars were either burgled or hired from car-rental companies at Stanstead Airport and Gatwick Airport and subsequently not returned. It was said the conspirators obtained in excess of 1, 200, 00 from genuine purchasers of the cloned vehicles. R v Brown (Crown Court at Southend). GBH. R v West (Crown Court at St Albans). GBH. R v Duck (Crown Court at Croydon). Possession with Intent Class A drugs. R v Kent (Crown Court at Isleworth). R v Fawaz. (City of Westminster Magistrates Court) Extradition. R v Chaudhry. (Crown Court at Manchester) Crewmember endangering aircraft by being over the prescribed blood alcohol limit. R v Frost and 12 others. (Crown Court at Ipswich) R v Singh and 6 others (Crown Court at Blackfriars). R v Brooks (Crown Court at Wood Green) Successful defence of GBH charge. R v Gleeson. (Crown Court at Chelmsford) Successful defence of ABH and Affray. R v Park (Crown Court at Bournemouth) Kidnap. R v Glenton (Bulford Military Centre District Court Martial). Soldier refusing to return to Afghanistan. Preliminary issues of international law raised. Click to read article. R v Hogg and 5 Others. (Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames) Conspiracy to supply cocaine. The value of the conspiracy was estimated to be in the region of 5.5 million. 2

3 R v Jay (Crown Court at Inner London) Robbery. R v Dewfall and 3 others. (Crown Court at Gloucester) Racially aggravated assault. This well publicised case was a sequel to a football game between Millwall and the Robins. It followed a serious incident between a number of visiting supporters and members of the public. Click to read article. R v Hogg and 5 others. Kingston Crown Court. November Confiscation. R v Squire Bristol Crown Court. March Burglary. R v Gidden. Inner London. Possession of class A drugs with intent to supply. December R v Abdullah Blackfriars Crown Court London. Robbery. R v May Middlesex Crown Court. Kidnap. R v Allen And 2 others. Kingstown Court Court. Handling R v Dewar. August Guildford Crown Court. Successful defence of a charge of perverting the course of justice. R v Cameron (Osnabruck Germany). District Court Martial. Defending soldier charged with Assault causing GBH R v Hewitt (Colchester) Court Martial. Defending soldier on a charge of Affray R v Sacca, Nyanjoti and Others. Defence counsel for. Appeals and CCRC Attorney General's Reference No s 89 and 90 of R v Hogg and Others [2008] EWCA Crim 240. Represented Hogg in the Court of Appeal. The Attorney General referred, as unduly lenient, sentences of 10 years' imprisonment imposed on two offenders following their pleas of guilty to conspiracy to supply controlled class A drugs and firearms offences. It was alleged that H had been at the head of a well-equipped, organised, sophisticated and successful conspiracy to supply large quantities of cocaine. The cocaine recovered had a street value of approximately 700,000 and the estimated value of the conspiracy as a whole was 5.5 million. R v Krzyiak (Zara) [2006] EWCA Crim This case, an appeal against a sentence of 15 months argued that the sentencing court provided false hope to a defendant. The defendant in question a 24 year old of previous good character repaid all sums defrauded in the period she awaited sentence but nevertheless a very severe custodial sentence was ultimately imposed at the final sentencing hearing. The court of appeal took the opportunity to provide some guidelines on the form of words a sentencing tribunal might adopt so as to obviate any disappointment in the event of 3

4 an immediate custodial sentence notwithstanding intervening efforts to put matters right by an appellant. Glica v Poland [2008] EWHC 1111 (Admin); [2008] Extradition L.R. 235; Divisional Court. The appellant (G) appealed against the decision of a district judge ordering his extradition to the respondent requesting state. Poland had sought G's extradition pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant certified by the United Kingdom and executed on G. The warrant, under the heading "Effective Judgment", identified two decisions of a Polish court, and specified two custodial sentences imposed on G and terms of imprisonment that G had to serve pursuant to those sentences. It was common ground between the parties that the offences in respect of which G's extradition was sought were extradition offences and that there were no bars to G's extradition or any human rights reasons as to why G should not be extradited. G contended, however, that the warrant was invalid because (1) it did not comply with the Extradition Act 2003 s.2 as it did not sufficiently specify on what basis it had been issued; (2) the English translation of the warrant was not a true copy of the Polish original as a phrase in the Polish original that part of one of the terms of imprisonment would be deemed to have been served had not been translated into English. R. (on the application of Mc Goldrick) v Hungary. R (on the application of Turner) v Hungary. [2009] EWHC 2816 (Admin). Representing both Appellants who appealed against the order of a judge ordering their extradition to Hungary. The argument in the Divisional court concerned the content of a European Arrest Warrant and whether in form and substance it complied with domestic extradition legislation as well as Community Law and European Human Rights. The case subsequently assumed wider dimensions as the conditions of the prisoners' detention in Hungary was widely criticised and the case was raised both at international diplomatic and political level. The controversy must still be considered as unresolved. Surprisingly both Appellants were subsequently released and allowed to return to their families in England. The case has been adopted by Fair Trials International whom counsel is assisting. R v O'Toole. [2008] EWCA Crim Representing the Appellant where he argued that evidence allowed to go before a jury of the offence being committed by the appellant s twin brother was prejudicial particularly when that brother had not been charged. R v Richards. Court of Appeal. In this case the Court of Appeal had to decide whether in the particular circumstances of the case whether a jury should have been discharged after the court found out that one of the jury had conducted his own research on the internet. R v Singh. Representing the Appellant in the Court of Appeal. Led. This appeal had to do with inconsistent verdicts in circumstances where a jury had convicted the appellant of Assault Causing Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH), but had nevertheless inconsistently, as was argued, acquitted him of the offence of Affray. 4

5 R v Abbs. (2011) Involving an appeal against a conviction of rapes in circumstances where the principal ground of appeal claimed the absence of competence on the part of defence counsel made the conviction unsafe. R v R. Appeal against sentence etc. Public and Prison Law In the matter of the Lord Meriworth brown and in the matter of the Viscount Moncton R v O DWYER V MINISTER for the ENVIRONMENT IRELAND and the ATTORNEY GENERAL (Constitutional challenge to the licensing regime of small public transport vehicles. This High Court case though appealed to the Irish Supreme Court was discontinued when the impugned legislation was radically amended probably due the litigation) reported at [ IR 255}. EHB v E (no. 1). In these complex proceedings the Respondents were accused of adopting an infant in contravention of the Adoption legislation in Ireland. Hugh represented a member of the Irish Bar accused of undue influence when advising the natural mother. This case received enormous national media coverage. Hugh was lead counsel for the barrister in the High Court. [2000]1 IR 430. Military Law R v Glenton (Bulford Military Centre District Court Martial). Soldier refusing to return to Afghanistan. Preliminary issues of international law raised. R v Regan. Ongoing. Raises the defence of Duress in a military context. R v Cameron (Osnabruck Germany). District Court Martial. Defending soldier charged with Assault causing GBH R v Hewitt (Colchester) Court Martial. Defending soldier on a charge of Affray Extradition and Mutual Assistance Glica v Poland [2008] EWHC 1111 (Admin); [2008]. Extradition L.R. 235; Divisional Court. The appellant (G) appealed against the decision of a district judge ordering his extradition to the respondent requesting state. Poland had sought G's extradition pursuant to a European Arrest 5

6 Warrant certified by the United Kingdom and executed on G. The warrant, under the heading "Effective Judgment", identified two decisions of a Polish court, and specified two custodial sentences imposed on G and terms of imprisonment that G had to serve pursuant to those sentences. It was common ground between the parties that the offences in respect of which G's extradition was sought were extradition offences and that there were no bars to G's extradition or any human rights reasons as to why G should not be extradited. G contended, however, that the warrant was invalid because (1) it did not comply with the Extradition Act 2003 s.2 as it did not sufficiently specify on what basis it had been issued; (2) the English translation of the warrant was not a true copy of the Polish original as a phrase in the Polish original that part of one of the terms of imprisonment would be deemed to have been served had not been translated into English. R. (on the application of Mc Goldrick) v Hungary. R (on the application of Turner) v Hungary. [2009] EWHC 2816 (Admin). Representing both Appellants who appealed against the order of a judge ordering their extradition to Hungary. The argument in the Divisional court concerned the content of a European Arrest Warrant and whether in form and substance it complied with domestic extradition legislation as well as Community Law and European Human Rights. The case subsequently assumed wider dimensions as the conditions of the prisoners' detention in Hungary was widely criticised and the case was raised both at international diplomatic and political level. The controversy must still be considered as unresolved. Surprisingly both Appellants were subsequently released and allowed to return to their families in England. The case has been adopted by Fair Trials International whom counsel is assisting. R v Puzo High Court. The case concerns a High Court challenge to a European Arrest Warrant in circumstances where the appellant is a Member of the Roma community and where his argument at first instance to the effect that his extradition would be in breach fundamental human rights (rights to life and freedom from torture and inhuman treatment) was rejected. R v Quinn High Court. The case concerns a British national sought by Turkey under by way of extradition. Serious issue of delay and the abuse of the process of extradition are under dispute. The matter is presently being litigated. 6