Showing 46791 results

Case and material in this file relate to applicant, Patrick Cannon, a fisherman of Killybegs, County Donegal, who had bought a trawler based on presumption he would be given licence and was then refused, due to delays and series of events which saw him purchasing a different vessel. The respondent as Minister for the Marine, has responsibility for licensing sea-fishing boats pursuant to the provisions of the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1983.

On 1st July, 1986 the respondent granted the applicant a licence for the MFV "Grampian Castle", a trawler of 150 feet length overall. On that date the applicant was in the course of purchasing the vessel, but he discovered cost of making boat sea-worthy would be substantially more than he had anticipated. He decided not to proceed with the purchase and in late 1986 he informed an official of the Department of Fisheries of that fact and that he proposed to seek another suitable vessel. The applicant was concerned that difficulties might arise regarding the granting of a sea-fishing boat licence for whatever alternative vessel he might wish to purchase and sought an assurance from the Department that a licence would be granted in respect of alternative vessel. Later in November, 1986 the applicant applied for a licence for MFV "Master Surveyor" but someone else purchased the vessel ahead of him. Nothing further happened until January, 1989 when the applicant wanted to purchase MFV "Bentley Queen" . The applicant contacted his local public representative, Mr. Pat "The Cope" Gallagher, who at that time was the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, regarding obtaining a licence for that vessel. He was told, considering the time lapsed that he would need to apply for a new licence.... this was eventually refused as policy had changed.

Justice Barr's judgement, 01/01/1991: "Taking all of these factors into account, I am of opinion that the concession on behalf of the respondent contained in the letter of 6th November, 1986 had expired prior to January, 1989 when the applicant first became interested in the "Bentley Queen". Therefore, the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant a licence for that vessel was neither unfair or unjust ...It follows that the only relief to which the applicant may be entitled is damages arising out of the respondent's failure to decide on the application for a licence for the "Bentley Queen" within a reasonable time, i.e., not later than 31st August, 1989. I do not have evidence on which to determine whether the applicant has suffered any loss by reason of the respondent's delay and, if so, to assess that loss. These issues should go to plenary hearing."

While Cannon was partly successful in the High Court and obtained an order for his costs, it is unclear from the limited documents on file what the final outcome of this case was, but Mary Robinson (MR), Senior Counsel, had returned case files in December 1990 so that another Senior Counsel could be instructed, should Cannon wish to appeal, following MR's election and inauguration as President of Ireland.

Material in the file consists of correspondence between MR and Aidan Reynolds of Gallagher Shatter solicitors, 21/02/1990-28/12/1990 including correspondence from Brendan Cahill, Department of the Marine 18/05/1990 and correspondence relating to fees; case documents (legal) including draft Notice of Motion, draft Affidavit of Patrick Cannon and draft Statement, 16/02/1990, Brief for Counsel, 13/03/1990; Statement of Opposition, 20/04/1990; Affidavit of Brendan Cahill, 22/05/1990; handwritten case notes; background material relating to case including photocopies of Commission of European Communities decision, 23/11/1988, on the Multiannual Guidance Programme for the fishing fleet (1987-1991), photocopies of parliamentary questions 25/10/1989 and photocopy of letter from JF Doyle, Secretary General, Irish fishermen's Organisation to John Moloney, Secretary, Sea-Fishing Licencing Review Group, Department of the Marine, 16/11/1989.

This subseries consists of three files relating to cases where the documentation is incomplete and/or the outcome unknown.

Material in this file consists of correspondence between Mary Robinson and Blake Kenny solicitors, Galway who represented a Garage proprietor in Galway and includes brief, an extract from the Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Community and cover letter requesting her legal opinion (16/12/1982) and reply promising same (21/12/1982). No further documentation.

Letter from Fachtna McCarthy, Collins Brooks and Associates, solicitors to Mary Robinson, Senior Counsel, in relation to notice of change of solicitor in High Court Matrimonial proceedings of O'Keeffe v O'Keeffe, which would see an end of his involvement, 03/07/1989. Letter has handwritten notation on rear.

File consists of letter from Terence Cosgrave of Terence Cosgrave & Co solicitors, to Mary Robinson (MR) thanking her for her legal opinion and asking a follow-up question (30/05/1990); reply from Ann Lane, Personal Assistant for MR, informing Cosgrave that MR was on Presidential campaign trail and suggesting he seek alternative Counsel (09/10/1990); letter from Cosgrave on behalf of client Mrs Faulkner, requesting recommendations for alternative Counsel and reply from Lane regretting that it was not appropriate for MR to do so (25-29/1/1991); handwritten note from Collette [?] relating to phone call from Faulkner requesting all documents relating to her case which MR still had and which were urgently needed for possible appeal, 199[?].

This file consists of material related to Mary Robinson (MR)'s work on behalf of petitioners in Lawrence v Texas and includes letter from Harold Hongju Koh, Counsel of Record and Professor of International Law, Yale Law School, to MR referencing Brief submitted on her behalf in Lawrence v Texas, 23/01/2003; photocopy of Confidential draft of Brief Amici Curiae "No. 02-102 in the Supreme Court of the United States October Term 2002 - John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners, v State of Texas, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District Brief Amici Curiae of [Mary Robinson], Amnesty International..." [[2002/3?] 16/01/2003 is date on cover but this is part of draft which is possibly penultimate draft]; green booklet published by Counsel Press of official Brief Amici Curiae: "No. 02-102 in the Supreme Court of the United States - John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners, v State of Texas, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals Of Texas, Fourteenth District Brief Amici Curiae of Mary Robinson, Amnesty International U.S.A., Human Rights Watch, Interights, The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights in Support of Petitioners...", and photocopy of same, filed 16/01/2003, with cover letter from Harold Koh; print out of email from Harold Koh to MR "Lawrence concurrence and dissents", 26/06/2003 including print outs of attached pdfs which contained opinions of Justice Thomas (dissenting), Justice Scalia (dissenting) and Justice O'Connor (concurring); email print out from Joshua Kaplan, Yale, to MR, Harold Koh, and others in relation to his reaction to judgement and noting that Justice Kennedy had cited the Dudgeon case including in his summary of the decision in court that morning, 26/06/2003; letter, and photocopy of same, from Senator Edward Kennedy congratulating MR on her "brilliant work on behalf of the petitioners" and mentioning that her own "trail-blazing experience with the Norris case helped bring about necessary change in Ireland and [that he was] delighted that [her] assistance in this case has helped with [their] own law on this matter", 21/07/2003, with photocopy of letter of thanks from MR noting the breakthrough of having "the case law of the European Court of Human Rights cited as a persuasive authority" and referencing her new project the Ethical Globalization Initiative - Realizing Rights, 01/08/2003.

Amicus Briefs US Supreme Court some of which involved Mary Robinson and others which she used as research.

Case relates to an American citizen, “seized on American soil away from any recognized or traditional field of battle and held incommunicado for more than a year without any charge being filed against him, without any access to counsel, and without any right to challenge the basis for his detention before a United States judge or magistrate", as per "Amici's Interest" in brief.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case, in which José Padilla, an American citizen, sought habeas corpus relief against Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, as a result of his detention by the military as an "unlawful combatant."

The case was petitioned to the United States Supreme Court. The principal issue before the Court was whether the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force post September 11, 2001, gave the president the powers to detain a United States citizen under military custody by classifying the detainee as an "enemy combatant."

This material was possibly used by Mary Robinson for research or reference.

Two copies of published Brief "Nos. 03-334 & 03-343 in the Supreme Court of the United States Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al., Petitioners, and Shafiq Rasul et al., Petitioners, v United States, et al., Respondents and George W. Bush, et al., Respondents. On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Brief of the International Commission of Jurists and the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists, Amici Curiae, Supporting Petitioners".

Rasul v Bush was a landmark decision of the United States (US) Supreme Court in which the Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention. The Court's 6–3 judgment on June 28, 2004, reversed a D.C. Circuit decision which had held that the judiciary has no jurisdiction to hear any petitions from foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay. The lead petitioner, British citizen Shafiq Rasul, was one of the Tipton Three. The US transported the three men to the United Kingdom in March 2004 before the decision was handed down, and the government released them the next day.

This material was either used for research or reference purposes by Mary Robinson, or she was involved through her work with the International Commission of Jurists, of which she was a member.

Kiki Camarena, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent was kidnapped and murdered by a Mexican drug cartel in 1985. After an investigation, the DEA concluded that Humberto Álvarez-Machaín had participated in the murder. A warrant for his arrest was issued by a federal district court. The DEA, however, was unable to convince Mexico to extradite Álvarez-Machaín, so they hired several Mexican nationals to capture him and bring him back to the United States. His subsequent trial was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which found that the government could try a person who had been forcibly abducted, but that the abduction itself might violate international law and provide grounds for a civil suit.

Material includes email printout of correspondence between Harold Koh. Counsel of Record and Professor of International Law, Yale University, Benjamin Hensler, Yale University and Mary Robinson (MR) asking if she would serve as amicus curiae in a brief to be filed in case of Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 11/02/2004; email print out of correspondence between MR, Koh and (Lord) Anthony Lester, Queen’s Counsel including printed attachment of draft brief 22-23/02/2004; print out of email from Koh to multiple recipients and attached pdf of copy of Brief of Amici Curiae International Jurists in Support of affirmance in Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 28/02/2004; published Brief "No. 03-339 in the Supreme Court of the United States José Francisco Sosa, Petitioner, v Humberto Alvarez-Machain, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Brief of Amici Curiae International Jurists in Support of Affirmance", 2004.

MR’s involvement in this case is as one of International Commission of Jurists and was amicus curiae.

Also included in this file is correspondence from Koh to MR in relation to another Amicus brief "Hamdi v Rumsfeld" which MR was happy to join as lead amicus, 18/10/2003-18/02/2004.