The High Court has quashed a Circuit Court order forfeiting a Range Rover Sport to the State and directed the State to deliver the vehicle to Glen Donoghue.
In a judgment delivered on 13 January 2016, Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the Circuit Court had applied the wrong legal test when it distinguished Donoghue’s possessory title from ownership. The court found that, on the circumstances before it, Donoghue satisfied the ownership test under the Police Property Act 1897, despite no competing claimant establishing a superior title.
Garda Enda Waters seized the Range Rover from Donoghue on 16 December 2013 under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act. The judgment records that there was no objection to the Garda’s power to seize it. UK inquiries indicated the vehicle had been reported stolen and was believed to be subject to a hire-purchase agreement involving Santander. The loans were later found to have been sold to Bluestone Portfolio Management (UK) Limited.
Donoghue told the Circuit Court he had bought the vehicle in Lancashire on 17 May 2013 from a man identified in the judgment as Mr Benson, trading in three cars and paying additional cash. He produced a UK DVLA certificate naming him as the vehicle’s keeper. The judgment explains that the UK registers a vehicle’s keeper, rather than its owner.
The Circuit Court found that Donoghue had established possessory title but had not proved ownership. It also found that neither Bluestone nor Santander had established title, and ordered the vehicle forfeited to the State on 19 November 2014. Donoghue challenged that order by judicial review.
The High Court rejected his separate challenge to the Circuit Court judge’s decision to adjourn the matter and hear further evidence, including from Bluestone. It held that the judge had authority to adjourn in the interests of justice and found nothing improperly inquisitorial in the questions put to Donoghue.
On the central title issue, the High Court distinguished the English case of Lyons, which concerned jewellers claiming a ring they suspected was stolen after it had been left in their custody. Barrett J considered that case’s facts materially different: Donoghue had given value for the Range Rover, maintained that it was his, and was not alleged to have been involved in the theft. The High Court concluded that the Circuit Court had misapplied the legal reasoning in Lyons.
The court described the legal error as significant and consequential. It granted certiorari quashing the forfeiture order and mandamus directing the State to deliver the Range Rover into Donoghue’s possession. It said those orders were sufficient and made no further declaration.