The District Court refused Noleen Coakley’s application to recover a Breitling watch valued at €3,500 and ordered its disposal under the Police Property Act 1897.
In a judgment delivered at Dublin District Court on 30 January 2018, Judge Brian O’Shea found that Ms Coakley had not established ownership of the watch, which Garda Brendan Eddery seized from her son, Nathan Coakley. The order was for disposal of the property under the Act; the judgment did not identify an owner or specify who would receive it.
Garda Eddery testified that Nathan was wearing the watch when brought to Finglas Garda station. He said Nathan first described it as an heirloom, then said he had won it. No other person had come forward to claim it, and Eddery said he had no evidence that it was the proceeds of crime or that anyone else claimed ownership. He also testified that Nathan followed him to several venues after a court appearance. Nathan denied following him; the judge accepted the garda’s account, saying it went to credibility but was not probative of ownership.
Ms Coakley said her late husband had left the watch for their son to wear. She described instructions that the watches be kept in the family and handed to the sons when they turned 21. But her evidence varied on whether the watches had been left for her son to wear or were to become the sons’ property later. She had no probate or documentation for the watch, and said it was insured under her house policy but not itemised.
Nathan said the watch belonged to his father and that his mother let him wear it. He considered his mother the owner. He acknowledged telling the garda it was an heirloom, said he was on drugs when stopped, and denied following the garda.
Ms Coakley’s counsel argued that possession supported a presumption of ownership and that there was no competing claim or evidence linking the watch to crime. The garda relied on the absence of documentation and the changing account of how Nathan obtained it.
The judge distinguished the authorities cited by the parties, including Mitchell v Farrelly, Donoghue v Judge O’Donoghue and the Attorney General, and O’Neill v Roe. He found the evidence inconsistent and was not satisfied that Ms Coakley had actual or constructive possession of the watch. Without a presumption arising from possession, he concluded that she had not shown she owned it. The application was refused and the disposal order made.