The High Court has declined to quash a District Court order refusing the return of seized money, finding that no such order had been made. The District Court had adjourned the applicant’s police property application while Gardaí investigated the money; the High Court refused all relief sought in the judicial review proceedings.
The case arose after Gardaí searched John Paul Ledwidge’s house on 14 August 2015 under a warrant issued that day under section 26 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. They seized thousands of euro and dollars. Ledwidge told Gardaí the money came from betting winnings and produced betting slips worth about a quarter of the amount. Gardaí were not satisfied with his explanation.
Within 48 hours, Gardaí obtained a District Court order allowing them to retain the cash for three months under section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994. Ledwidge’s solicitor later sought notice of any further retention application, then requested the return of the money or an explanation for its continued detention. The solicitor also began an application under the Police (Property) Act 1897.
Ledwidge’s solicitor said Garda Murray had told him by phone that the money would be returned. Murray denied this. The solicitor adjourned the police property application on 18 December 2015, expecting the money to be returned. When Ledwidge went to the Garda station, he was told the safe key could not be found and was asked about the money’s origin. He declined to answer on his solicitor’s advice.
At the next hearing, on 25 January 2016, Murray told the District Judge that he was conducting a money laundering investigation. In affidavit evidence accepted by the High Court, Murray said the judge then adjourned the application because the money was under investigation. The respondents denied that the judge had refused to return it. The High Court noted that no copy of the alleged refusal order had been produced and held that it could not quash an order that did not exist.
Ledwidge had initially sought an order compelling the respondents to return the money, but dropped that request at the hearing. His remaining claim sought certiorari to quash the alleged District Court refusal. The High Court also observed that an appeal against an adjournment was possible and that judicial review was generally inappropriate where an appeal could address the alleged error. It expressed no view on whether the District Court had mishandled the matter and concluded that any such issue was best addressed on appeal. It declined to grant any of the reliefs sought.