Somali diplomat challenges detention in Dublin jail over alleged people smuggling
Mohamed Abdallatif Hussein, who is attached to the Federal Republic of Somalia embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was arrested by gardaí at Dublin Airport on November 26th last year.
He was brought before Dublin District Court later that day accused of two counts of alleged people smuggling under the Criminal Justice (Smuggling of Persons) Act, 2021, at Dublin Airport's terminal one.
On the same date, he was also charged with two further offences under the Act.
READ MORE
Last January at Cloverhill District Court he was further charged with four counts of alleged people smuggling under the Act at terminal two, Dublin Airport, on November 6th and September 30th last year.
He has not yet entered a plea on any of the eight charges.
Barry Ward SC, for Mr Hussein, told the High Court on Monday his client has been held here 'unlawfully' since November and was entitled to diplomatic immunity.
While only Mr Hussein's side was represented in court, Mr Ward told Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger his client was travelling under a diplomatic passport at the time of his arrest last November.
Mr Ward is bringing the High Court application to have his client released from Cloverhill Prison.
On Friday, Faisal Sadiq Khan of FSK Solicitors wrote to the prison governor, requesting his client's 'immediate' release under the Constitution's Article 40.4.2, which concerns the lawfulness of a person's detention.
The request was refused by the prison, which said the release of Mr Hussein required a High Court order.
Mr Hussein's lawyers say he is entitled to diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention.
In a sworn statement to the court, Mr Khan said his client was a diplomatic agent 'within' the meaning ... the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, transposed into Irish law'.
Mr Hussein is bringing the High Court application against the Director of Public Prosecutions and the governor of Cloverhill Prison.
The matter is back before the High Court later this week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Injunction granted restraining Gavin Pepper from filming home of Pepper Finance boss
An interim injunction has been granted against a far-right councillor restraining him from filming and besetting the home of the head of debt firm Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Ltd DAC. The High Court injunctions against Independent Dublin city councillor Gavin Pepper (who has no connection to Pepper Finance) also restrain such activity against members of Ian Wigglesworth's family. The managing director has five children, including one with Down syndrome, who was visibly upset after being recently filmed playing outside his home. The injunctions also prohibit Mr Pepper from obstructing, harassing, threatening, pursuing or intimidating Mr Wigglesworth and his family, who live in a Dublin housing estate. Cllr Pepper, of Plunkett Green, Finglas, Dublin, must also remove social media posts which contain video footage taken outside Mr Wigglesworth's home. READ MORE Brian Conroy SC, for Mr Wigglesworth and Pepper Finance, said Cllr Pepper has a well established association with the far right and social media posts promoting far-right ideas. This injunction application, brought on a one-side-only represented (ex parte) basis, was urgent in the context of recent events, he said, adding that his clients were concerned about the possibility of such events becoming more serious. Mr Wigglesworth, in a sworn statement, said Cllr Pepper has engaged in a series of threats and acts of intimidation against him and Pepper Finance. On July 25th, he arrived at Mr Wigglesworth's family home, set up a video camera with tripod and began filming his family, including his son with Down syndrome. It was particularly distressing that Cllr Pepper sought to disparage his son in a recent social media post which was published on X, Facebook and Instagram, he said. A second defendant in the case is David Rafferty, of Plunkett Green in Finglas, Dublin, who holds a mortgage account with Pepper has admitted to disseminating personal information about Mr Wigglesworth, including his address. He is sued arising from the sequence of events that followed but there was no application for an injunction against him. Cllr Pepper has published a total of 14 social media posts in relation to Mr Wigglesworth and his company. The posts are offensive, defamatory, threatening and replete with misinformation, Mr Wigglesworth said. In Cllr Pepper's first post on June 12th, he signalled his intention to attend the homes of named people. On July 25th, he threatened to camp outside Mr Wigglesworth's home if he didn't 'come to the table' in relation to the interest rates Pepper Finance charges. In commentary with his posts, Cllr Pepper said he had 'all the information about the staff' at Pepper Finance and another company. This prompted threatening comments from other social media posts. Mr Justice Brian Cregan also ordered Cllr Pepper be restrained from publishing the staff's addresses. He said he would deal with the issue of extending the injunctions to Pepper Finance itself when the case returns on Thursday.
Irish Examiner
7 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Man must pay Sky €480,000 in damages for ‘dodgy box' copyright infringement
A Co Wexford man must pay €480,000 in damages to Sky after conceding a High Court action taken by the broadcaster and telecommunications giant over his operation of a 'dodgy box' streaming service. David Dunbar consented to judgment against him after opting not to defend the civil case, brought by Sky UK Limited over his infringement of the broadcaster's copyright. Further sanctions open to the court Mr Dunbar faces further sanction for being in contempt of court, having breached orders aimed at preserving evidence of his copyright infringement and orders freezing his assets, among other directions. A suite of sanctions are open to the court, including imprisonment. Mr Dunbar, with an address at Manor Crescent, Roxborough Manor, Co Wexford, was previously described by Sky as a 'top-level' copyright infringer who may have earned up to €450,000 a year from operating an illegal streaming service. The broadcaster alleged that Mr Dunbar provided thousands with access to its copyrighted broadcast material since 2018. On Tuesday, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey was informed that Mr Dunbar was consenting to various reliefs sought by Sky arising from his copyright infringement. The judge said there was no doubt of Mr Dunbar's copyright infringement, and ordered that he pay €480,000 in damages to Sky. Mr Dunbar must also pay the broadcaster's legal costs, the judge ruled, about €100,000. The judge also granted various permanent injunctions against Mr Dunbar, including an order restraining him from ever operating an internet protocol television service (IPTV). IPTV is the technology behind 'dodgy box' services. Mr Justice Sanfey reserved his judgment on an attachment and committal motion moved by Sky over Mr Dunbar's breach of several court orders. The court heard that Mr Dunbar did not comply with various orders granted to Sky aimed at gathering evidence of his wrongdoing. This included a refusal to comply with an Anton Piller order, which allows for entry to private premises for the purposes of seizing evidence. 'Clear breaches' of court orders Theo Donnelly, appearing for Sky and instructed by Philip Lee LLP, submitted that Mr Dunbar engaged in clear breaches of court orders. He submitted that the court orders were explained to Mr Dunbar in layman's terms by an independent solicitor who called to his house on foot of the Anton Piller order. Despite this, he did not allow the solicitor to enter his premises, and proceeded to destroy evidence of his copyright infringement, among other breaches, Mr Donnelly submitted. Counsel said it was hard to see how Mr Dunbar could have engaged in a more 'clear and knowing' contempt of the court orders. Defendant's speedy consent to judgment It is Mr Dunbar's case that when the orders were explained to him by his legal representatives, he realised the seriousness of the matter. Following this, he said he sought to comply with the court's orders, the court heard. Darren Lehane, counsel for Mr Dunbar and instructed by Dodd Solicitors, said his client was acknowledging his contempt of court. In considering sanction for his contempt, Mr Lehane asked the court to take into account Mr Dunbar's speedy consent to a judgment against him in default of defence. Mr Donnelly said he believed Mr Dunbar's case has not been referred to An Garda Síochána, but said he had not taken specific instruction on the matter. The case returns next month.
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
X loses High Court challenge brought against Coimisiún na Meán safety code
Social media giant X has lost a High Court challenge brought against Ireland's broadcasting and online media regulator, Coimisiún na Meán, over its online safety code. X International Unlimited Company, which operates X, formerly known as Twitter, had alleged that the media regulator engaged in 'regulatory overreach' in its approach to restrictions on certain video content. Coimisiún na Meán's online safety code, which was adopted last October and came into effect earlier this month, sets out legally binding rules for video-sharing platforms. It is aimed at protecting the public, and especially children, from harmful online content. X, owned by Elon Musk, had sought a High Court order compelling the commission to quash its decision to adopt certain sections of the code. It also sought the court to overturn the commission's decision to apply the code to its platform. READ MORE In a judgment, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley on Tuesday said he was refusing the reliefs sought by X. The judge dismissed several arguments made by the platform in the proceedings, including that the code was out of step with European legislation. The judge found the code did not go beyond what is permitted by the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD), a European Union directive that underpins the code. He said the code was not in conflict with the Digital Services Act, an EU regulation that also sets out rules for online content. In the context of this case, the judge noted the Digital Services Act treats provisions in the AVMSD 'in a complementary manner'. The latter directive is not 'displaced or substantially curtailed' by the Digital Services Act, the judge said, as had been submitted by X. The AVMSD complements the Digitial Services Act in 'providing specific rules in determining what content can be harmful to minors', the judge said. X had submitted that in adopting the sections complained of in the safety code, Coimisiún na Meán went beyond what is permitted by the AVMSD, allowing for a total ban or prohibition of certain online content. X saidthe directive only allows for measures to control access to certain online content. X also argued that parts of the code strayed into the regulation of matters within the scope of the Digital Services Act. Further to this, X argued the code was in conflict with the provisions of the act. The judgment will be formalised later in the week. Mr Justice Bradley said he was minded to make an order for costs in favour of the commission, given it has been entirely successful in defending the action.
