 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Osama Daneshyar |
|
||||||||||
| Year of Call - 1996 | |||||||||||
| Inner Temple | |||||||||||
| Practice Profile | |||||||||||
| Osama Daneshyar has been a practicing member of the England and Wales bar since he completed his pupillage in 1997. Although at the beginning of his career he undertook work in many areas of the law, from Family Law, Employment to the Intellectual Property. However, over time he has concentrated on Criminal, Human Rights and Administrative Law. Mr Daneshyar is now one of the most senior Arab speaking Barristers in England, only second to Michele Massih QC. He has undertaken very complex and serious criminal cases ranging from the Money Laundering and Complex Frauds to Terrorism where he represented Abu Hamza, during the course of his SIAC proceedings, and one of the Defendants charged in what because the Dirty Bomb Conspiracy. | |||||||||||
| Languages | |||||||||||
| Arabic, English and basic French | |||||||||||
| Cases | |||||||||||
| Some of the following reported cases are examples of the work that has been undertaken by Mr Daneshyar over the years. In the last 2 years he has undertaken the representation of several Defendants charged with Murder, Attempted Murder and Manslaughter including one Attempted Murder case where he was instructed as a Leading Junior in a case where the Crown was represented by Queen’s Counsel. Other criminal defence work undertaken by Mr Daneshyar include offences under the Terrorism Act, including the first case to be brought under the new Provisions of the Terrorism Act relating to attendance at a place where terrorism training was taking place R v Mohammed Kyriacou and very large and complex conspiracies to Defraud. Apart from crime Mr Daneshyar continued to expand his Judicial Review work where in the last 2 years he was involved in challenging the Application of S.116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and its compatibility with article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention of Human Rights in the reported case R v Sutton Coldfield Magistrates Court ex Parte Paul Anthony Robinson [2006] All ER where the Applicant challenged the legality of the decision of the Magistrates to allow the Prosecution to read the statement of the complainant thereby securing conviction without the Applicant being able to challenge the sole evidence against him. The challenge did not succeed in England and the matter is awaiting the decision of the European Court of Human Rights following an application made to the Strasborg Court. Mr Daneshyar has also successfully challenged a decision of the Election Court Commissioner, following the Birmingham Postal Voting fraud in the case of R (on the application of Khan) v Election Commissioner [2005] All ER (D) 203 (Oct). Most recently Mr Daneshyar has been involved in 2 further reported Court of Appeal cases, R v Dean Smith, William Melvin Carter and Others [2008] EWCA Crim 1342 and R v Clive Wood [2008] WLR (D) 204, which is now the leading authority on the law of Manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility attributable of alcohol dependency syndrome. |
|||||||||||
| International Criminal Procedure | |||||||||||
| Mr Daneshyar is also actively involved in International Criminal Procedure – In June 1999, he attended the trial of prisoners of conscience in Turkey as an observer on behalf of UK bases Human Rights Organisations, compiling a report listing the violations of the various Provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights including Article 3 on prohibition of Torture Cruel and Degrading Treatment, and the right to a fair trial under Article 6. The report was sent to the UN, which subsequently intervened to force the Turkish Government to release the prisoners 15 of whom faced the death penalty for an allegation of subverting the secular constitution. In March 2001 Mr Daneshyar travelled to Mauritius to investigate Human Rights violations and prepared a report on police torture and the denial of the suspects right to a fair trial titled Equal In The Eyes Of The Law. The publication of the report led to the Maurition authorities coming under close international scrutiny. Subsequently Mr Daneshyar asked to represent Mr Cehel Meeha the leader of a Political Party who was charged with giving instructions to kill, and the attempted assassination of the former Maurition Prime Minister. The case having proceeded to committal and lasted in excess of 2 ½ years was eventually dropped by the director of Public Prosecutions within 6 months of the instructions of Mr Daneshyar and first appearance in the Port Louis Assize Court with Mr Nicholas Cooke QC, now the recorder of Cardiff. In June 2004, Mr Daneshyar drafted an application to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Seima Bekir v Turkey. The Applicant sought to bring proceedings against the Turkish State challenging the decision of the Respondent to dismiss her from her employment as a teacher for her refusal to take her head scarf off. It was argued that the prohibition on the wearing of the head scarf was a violation of the Applicant’s Right under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights when combined with Article 14. In 2005 Mr Daneshyar undertook the representation of Farid Hilali who was sought by the Spanish Government on an accusation that he conspired with others to Murder 2793 people relating to the attacks on the United States on 11th September 2001. After lengthy legal challenges relating to both the legality of the extradition request, and also the behaviours of the UK office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Hilali was extradited to Spain where he is still awaiting his trial. Having take instruction at a stage where the Spanish Supreme Court found others not guilty of being involved in any conspiracy to participate in any of the attacks in the United States, it was argued by Mr Daneshyar with the assistance of Alan Jones QC, that the continued request for extradition of Mr Hilali was not only on an abuse of process, but was also a violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights as well as giving the Appellant a ground for Asylum under Article 51 of the Refugee Convention in that he had a well founded fear of persecution for political as well as religious beliefs, Farid Hilali v Bow Street Magistrates Court and The Central Court of Criminal Proceedings Number 5 of the National Court Madrid. In August 2006, during the Israeli conflict with Lebanon, Mr Daneshyar and Peter carter QC the then head of the Bar Human Rights Committee undertook an attempt to Judicially Review the failure of the Civil Aviation Authority to prevent the use of UK airspace and airports from being used as a transit port to flights carrying weapons from the United States to Israel, on the grounds that the conflict having been identified as being a disproportionate use of force, the provision of facilities to Israel in circumstances where there was a prima facie case of violation of International Humanitarian Law on the part of Israel, amounted to adding abetting and encouragement to an offence under International Criminal Court Act 2001, as well as the 1957 Geneva Convention Act and was itself unlawful in UK law. R v Civil Aviation Authority, Ministry of Defence, and Foreign and Commonwealth Office ex parte Islamic Human Rights Commission 23rd August 2006. In September 2006, following the end of the 33 day conflict in Lebanon, Mr Daneshyar Webster QC and Mr Metzger of Counsel were asked by the Islamic Human Rights Commission and Oxfam to travel to Lebanon and prepare a report on the conduct of the war by the Israeli Defence Forces, and whether it breached the Geneva Convention and the rules of War. |
|||||||||||
| 2010 Equity Chambers | Equity Chambers | 153a Corporation Street | Birmingham | B4 6PH | Tel: 0121 233 2100 | |