| |
 |
Quick Select |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
9 Carmelite Street
London EC4Y 0DR
Tel: 020 7936 6300
Fax: 020 7936 6301
Out of Hours Number:
07760 261 795
Email clerks team
LDE: 226
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Hugh O'Donoghue |
|
|
 |
|
|
EDUCATION
BCL LL.B LL.M(NUI)
CALLED 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRACTICE
Criminal and civil advocacy. Hugh has 15 years Higher Rights Advocacy experience in the Irish Courts where he practiced as a solicitor. His specialism is in International Law including Extradition and Human Rights with a particular emphasis on appeals. He regularly appears in the Court of Appeal and High Court and is noted for his strong reputation for doing a thorough job combined with a singular resolve to serve the needs of his clients.
BACKGROUND
Hugh's transfer to the UK 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 2004-2006; Vice - Chair 2003-2004. Member of the Irish Law Society Standing Committee on Curriculum Development (CDU) 2005-2007. Vice-Chair 2006. He represented Ireland on the prestigious Union International du Notariat Latin between 2005 and 2007. He is currently affiliated to OHIM (EU).
Now based full time in London he is able to offer his clients the advantages not only of a strategic location but also the depth and range of talent available at Carmelite chambers (founded by the late Richard Ferguson QC).
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 has also lectured in Warsaw (2003) and also in South Africa (2004-2005) where he contributed to a programme extensively funded by the Irish Government to assist disadvantaged lawyers gain knowledge and skills in the highly rewarding but monopolised commercial field. His interest in education was reflected in his role as vice-chair of the Curriculum Development Committee of the Irish Law Society. He has maintained his interest in education and has recently given a talk at the College of Law Bloomsbury in London on the topic of the international aspects of Military Law.
NOTABLE CASES
DPP V LONERGAN
(for the Defendant in the first case of marital rape in Ireland.)
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 [2001 1 IR 255}
IN re A FORESTMILL INVESTMENTS
a High and Supreme matter involving the law on minority shareholder protection), where he acted for the oppressed shareholder.
R v. Sanchez & Others, Northampton CC.GALLAGHER v IRELAND,THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
an
important judgment, where the Irish High Court interpreted the
recent Statute of Limitations in a controversy that centred on
the Plaintiff’s state and date of knowledge of his
injuries.[1998]4 IR 457.
SALVE MARINE v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Hugh
represented the Plaintiff corporation against the background of
the then novel Freedom of Information Act, where the Commissioner had
refused to release information relating to the Plaintiff’s business on
the basis the info was generated prior to the operation of the Act. The
Plaintiff argued the legislation had retrospective effect in
circumstances where the material released could not be understood
except by reference to the earlier documents. This case was an Appeal
from the Information Commissioner by way of judicial review to the
High. Reported , Irish Times July20,2000.
In re a BANKRUPT v THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY
This
was another judicial review ( and is presently under Appeal to the
Irish Supreme Court ) Hugh acts for a bankrupt in a challenge to
the preliminary procedure that led to the adjudication in bankruptcy .
In an important judgment the High Court equated fraudulent oath
to a legal technicality that the Court held was not fatal to the
Bankruptcy process. This decision is presently under appeal. Report :
IEHC 75.
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,
GALLAGHER v IRELAND. (No 2)
He
acted for the Plaintiff in a judgment that established the legal
liability of the Irish State for military bandsmen in the service
of the State who had experienced levels of hearing loss as a
result of inadequate practice conditions.
HIGH AND APPEAL COURT CASES
Attorney General's Reference Nos 89 and 90 of 2007. 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.
Click to read article
R v Krzyiak (Zara) [2006] EWCA Crim 1135.
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 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.
Click to read article
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 3092.
Representing the Appellant where he argued that evidence allowed to go before a jury of the offence being committed by the appellants 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.
R v Quinn. 2010. 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.
R v Puzo. 2010. 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.
OTHER CASES
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. Click to read article.
R v Brown. 2010 (Crown Court at Southend).
GBH
R v West. 2010. (Crown Court at St Albans).
GBH
R v Duck. 2010. (Crown Court at Croydon)
Possession with Intent Class A drugs.
R v Kent. 2009. (Crown Court at Isleworth)
R v Fawaz. (City of Westminster Magistrates Court). 2009.
Extradition.
R v Chaudhry. (Crown Court at Manchester). 2009.
Crewmember endangering aircraft by being over the prescribed blood alcohol limit.
R v Frost and 12 others. (Crown Court at Ipswich). 2009.
R v Singh and 6 others. 2008. (Crown Court at Blackfriars).
R v Brooks (Crown Court at Wood Green). 2008.
Successful defence of GBH charge.
R v Gleeson. (Crown Court at Chelmsford) 2008
Successful defence of ABH and Affray.
R v Park (Crown Court at Bournemouth). 2008.
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). 2007.
Conspiracy to supply cocaine. The value of the conspiracy was estimated to be in the region of £5.5 million.
R v Jay (Crown Court at Inner London). 2007.
Robbery.
R v Dewfall and 3 others. (Crown Court at Gloucester). 2007.
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 2007.
Confiscation.
R v Squire Bristol Crown Court. March 2007.
Burglary.
R v Gidden. Inner London.
Possession of class A drugs with intent to supply. December 2006.
R v Abdullah. 2006. Blackfriars Crown Court London.
Robbery.
R v May 2006. Middlesex Crown Court.
Kidnap
R v Allen 2006. And 2 others. Kingstown Court Court.
Handling
R v Dewar. August 2005. 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. 2005.
R v Hewitt (Colchester) Court Martial.
Defending soldier on a charge of Affray. 2005.
R v Sacca, Nyanjoti and Others.
Defence counsel for one of the successful so-called “Uxbridge 7” who were charged with aggravated trespass following a political protest at the premises of the Israeli owned Agrexco/ Carmel premises in Middlesex ( the protestors had chained themselves to the perimeter fences). A pre-condition to the crime of aggravated trespass is that the usual activities taking place on the land in question are themselves lawful. The defendants argued that the company’s connections with Israel linked it to crimes involving breaches of International law and domestic legislation with particular reference to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (i.e. conduct ancillary to war-crimes) thus rendering the activities within the industrial premises unlawful. It was also argued that as the company had not obtained a current export licence within the EU and that also tainted its business with illegality. Click to read article
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
"Abolition of the House of Lords and Other Reforms: A British Republic?" (2010) 28 ILT 75.
Click to read article
Co-Author : Human Rights in Ireland -publisher Oxford University Press.
“The Connolly Case” a
discussion of EU human rights case-law; Art 10 ECHR; censorship in the
EC Commission. Hibernian Law Journal,2002 3(1), 115-125.
“Barristers are from Mars, Solicitors are from Venus?” G.L.S.I.2003,97(5) 8-9.
“No longer poles apart” An account of the legal profession in Poland. G.L.S.I.2003 97(5).
“Getting it right: Danish pastry meets American pie”. Compares
current debate and misgivings surrounding the Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe with the debates of the Congress of
Philadelphia of 1787 that preceded the adoption of the Constitution of
the United States in 1789. G.L.S.I. 2004,98(6), 8-11.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Criminal Bar Association.
Law Society, Dublin
Association of Law Teachers(I.A.L.T.)
Canon Law Society of England and Wales |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
View All Tenants |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
