Adaku Oragwu has an increasingly mixed practice, although predominantly she practices in a broad range criminal work where she both prosecutes and defends. Her Environmental Criminal Practice involves statutory nuisance, and health and safety.  Her Regulatory Criminal Practice involves Trademarks, Patents, Copyright and Design cases.  Her general criminal practice involves a wide range of offences including serious crimes of violence, drugs, sex, offences of dishonesty, money laundering, the facilitation of illegal entry, and substantial duty evasion.  She has prosecuted and defended in several serious multi-handed cases, and she has been led in a number of serious cases. 

She also prosecutes on behalf of the Chief Constable of Kent and the Kent County Council. 

Notable cases

• R v Jasaitis – Appeared for the Crown. The defendant was charged with blackmail.  There was extensive pre-trial legal argument on the admissibility of identification evidence in which police officers gave evidence on the voire dire.  Police officers had sought to identify the defendant from CCTV stills to which the defence objected.  The case of R v Smith [2008] 7 Archbold News 2 was considered (police officers identifying a defendant from a CCTV recording).  Once the identification evidence was ruled admissible there were a number of evidential threads which were drawn together leading to the conviction of the defendant.
• R v Ross and Mills - Appeared for the first of two defendants charged with robbery.  The civilian witnesses for the prosecution were all juveniles and all gave their evidence using the television link. The case involved extensive cross-examination of young witnesses via the video link. At the trial the jury were unable to agree upon a verdict in respect of both defendants.  The prosecution did not proceed to a re-trial.
• R v Aaron Blake – Appeared for the defendant who was charged with wounding with intent.  He had previously pleaded guilty to malicious wounding.  The facts were that he had used a bottle to cause injury to the complainant’s face leaving scarring.  He was acquitted of the more serious charge because the CCTV footage the Crown relied upon, although of poor quality, clearly showed the complainant being aggressive towards the defendant’s girlfriend.  This fact was relayed to the defendant by a third party and when the defendant arrived at the scene he lashed out (not in self-defence) but at the same time not intending to cause really serious harm.
• R v Hubball – Appeared for the Crown.  The defendant was charged with trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence.  He gained entry to a woman’s home late at night via her front door which was shut but not locked.  He went to her bedroom and tried to remove her bedclothes.  She woke up and he then left.  She saw the same male by chance a week later and reported the matter to the police who then arrested him.
• R v Williams – Appeared for the Crown.  The defendant was charged with theft by employee.  She worked as a cash office in manager in a branch of Tesco and over a period of about two years she stole nearly £13,000 from her employer.  The case involved chartered accountants giving expert evidence and these experts were called by both the prosecution and the defence.     
• R v Hercock and Others – Appeared to prosecute three defendants charged with affray.  The circumstances were that they had gone to the home of a man whom they thought to be a paedophile armed with weapons and forced their way into the property.  All three defendants were convicted.    
• R v Holloway and Others – Appeared to defend the last of five defendants charged with aggravated burglary.  The complainant was an admitted drug dealer and the prosecution’s case was the five defendants had forced their way into the man’s home armed with weapons in order to settle a drugs deal.  The defendant was acquitted.
• R v Norwood and Norwood – Appeared on behalf of the first defendant in a DWP fraud.  The defendant was charged along with her husband with a benefit fraud which spanned 13 years.  During that time they were able to defraud the DWP in the sum of £75,000.  Interestingly the husband was for the majority of fraudulent period employed by a benefits agency as a fraud investigator. 

She has appeared in the following Court of Appeal cases:

1.     R v Jason Karl Martin (8/2/06);

2.     R v C Christian Crowley [2005] EWCA Crim 3181 (Sexual Offences Prevention Orders);

3.     R v C C [2004] EWCA Crim 2955 (Cruelty to a child);

4.     R v Aaron Thomas-Ottewill [2004] EWCA Crim 2512 (Escape, Common Assault, Firearms offences);

5.     R v Anita Ripley [2004] EWCA Crim 2559 (Affray);

R v Nicola Jane Sharp [2004] EWCA Crim 1306 (Drugs offences).