The Supreme Court has ruled that search warrants used in an investigation involving businessman Dylan Creaven and two companies were invalid, with the exception of a warrant relating to the Dublin Metropolitan District.
The case arose against the background of a British investigation into an alleged VAT “carousel” fraud involving high-value computer processors. British Customs suspected Mr Creaven and associated companies of involvement. Those allegations were not determined in this appeal.
In November 2002, Irish authorities obtained five warrants under the Criminal Justice Act 1994 to assist the British investigation and seven further warrants under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. They covered premises in Dublin, Limerick, Ennis and elsewhere, including company premises, Mr Creaven’s home and professional offices.
All were issued on November 18, 2002 by District Judge David Anderson. Although sitting in the Dublin Metropolitan District, he had been temporarily assigned to several other District Court districts so that he could deal with the applications.
Mr Justice Fennelly held that the temporary assignments themselves were legally permissible. However, a District Judge exercising judicial powers must ordinarily sit within the district concerned. Judge Anderson therefore could not validly issue warrants for three other districts while remaining physically in Dublin.
The Supreme Court also upheld the quashing of the warrants issued under section 55 of the 1994 Act. That provision required a request received from the government of the foreign country. The request relied upon expressly came from a British prosecuting authority, not from the UK Government, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory condition.
The court criticised the Criminal Assets Bureau’s earlier refusal to provide Mr Creaven’s solicitors with documents used to ground the warrant applications, describing the refusal as reprehensible.
The court held that items seized under invalid warrants should be returned to their true owners, although it indicated that counsel might need to be heard on the precise form of that order.