| Main - Documents |
01/06/05 - In The Crown Court at Lincoln
Regina -v- Patrick Bernard O'Mahoney
ADVICE No. 1
1. Instructing Solicitors are thanked for the instructions in this case. The case awaits a Plea and Direction Hearing (or a Plea and Case Management Hearing).
2. Mr. O'Mahoney is facing an allegation of Blackmail. He has been remanded in custody. I have seen the papers that were used for the Preliminary Hearing. I have also had two long discussions with Mr. Cauthery about this case, as I am concerned about an ethical matter that may arise from my perusal of the papers as they stand at the moment.
3. My concern is that the prosecution is using evidence of an Internet web-site purporting to belong to Mr. O'Mahoney as part of its' case. The web-site features me as the barrister who helped secure Mr. O'Mahoney an acquittal last year for assault allegations. The concern I have is that IF the prosecution is going to use the weD-site as part of the evidence, it would not be right for me to represent Mr. O'Mahoney. Although, no "conflict" in the strictest term arises, it would be odd for the jury have to consider materials that features the very advocate involved in the case i.e. I am part of the evidence!
4. The prosecution have found an item on the web-site dealing with "debt collecting" using unconventional means. They seem to be saying that that supports their present case. The concern I have is that this allegation does not seem to arise from that source as it were. Secondly, the allegation seems to be specific to the complainant dispute about money outstanding. Further, any introduction of the web-site evidence would effectively mean Mr. O'Mahoney's "character" in the legal sense of "shield" would be revealed. The web-site refers to books and criminal cases. My view at present is that it would be highly prejudicial for the prosecution to be able to rely on that evidence.
5. Unless the prosecution papers once served do not show the web-site as being used as evidence and a Judge gave a "binding ruling" not to allow the web-sites use, I may unfortunately not be able to represent Mr. O'Mahoney.
6. I understand from my instructing Solicitor that the prosecution at a bail hearing suggested that intelligence existed that the previous acquittal was because Mr. O'Mahoney had paid off a witness to "throw" the case. It should be noted that the prosecution witnesses came "up to proof and in my view the 2 main witnesses did not present a convincing case. Prosecuting Counsel (Miss Pritchard) said that had she had the case earlier, she would have discarded 2 of her eyewitness' as they did not support the case - in fact contradicted it! The case was stopped at half time. To say now a witness lied is wrong. If there were any lying, it would have had to have taken place at the time the witness statements were taken.
7. I hope the above assists. I would be happy to hold the brief until all the papers are received and we have had further discussions on the matter.
E M Mooncey 1st June 2005 |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
|
