A Dublin District Court judge found that Ryan Mansfield owned a Volkswagen Polo held by gardaí, but adjourned his application for its return while a money-laundering investigation continued.
Judge Brian O’Shea delivered the judgment on April 16, 2018. The car was estimated to be worth between €12,000 and €14,000, and the judgment said its value was falling while it remained in Garda possession. There was no competing ownership claim.
The court heard that on October 24, 2017, Garda Coyne suspected cannabis was inside the car and sought to search it under the Misuse of Drugs Acts. Mansfield locked the car and declined to allow the search. It was towed to Tallaght Garda station, and Mansfield’s mother later gave gardaí the keys. The judge said the evidence did not explain why she did so and presumed it was to avoid damage when the car was opened, rather than to consent to a search.
Coyne described inconsistencies in records concerning the car’s importation, sale, registration and licensing, as well as inconsistencies in statements. Some statements were admitted only to test witness credibility, not as proof that their contents were true. The judge described Mansfield’s evidence as lacking detail and noted a lack of clarity in his mother’s testimony.
Despite those issues, Judge O’Shea was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mansfield owned the car. He said the anomalies could be explained in ways consistent with innocence as well as perceived guilt.
Coyne also testified that the car was being held for an ongoing money-laundering investigation, which he expected to finish within six months. He declined to give details, saying that might compromise the investigation. The judge considered the suspicion reasonable in light of evidence about the car’s purchase expenses, vehicle registration tax and insurance costs, but said the evidence before the court amounted to little more than suspicion. He also found the car central to the investigation and considered that continued retention might partly reflect a desire to outwit Mansfield because he had declined to engage with Coyne.
The court adjourned the application to June 26, 2018. If the investigation was complete by then and no prosecution was directed, the car was to be returned to Mansfield and the application struck out. If charges were directed arising from the car’s importation, registration, licensing or sale, and retaining it was reasonably considered necessary for prosecution, the application would be refused. If the investigation remained incomplete, or directions were unavailable, the respondent would have to explain the position in detail, and the court would require a very high degree of persuasion to withhold the car. The judgment did not order its immediate return.