The High Court refused a defendant’s motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction and the service of proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996.
In a judgment delivered on 26 May 2005, President of the High Court Finnegan considered four forms of relief sought by the defendant: dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for want of jurisdiction; setting aside an order made without notice on 3 March 2003; production of the transcript of that application; and a declaration that the plenary summons had ceased to be in force because it was not lawfully served within 12 months.
The defendant argued that the Act did not cover proceeds of crimes committed abroad. The judge said the plaintiff’s application relied on alleged criminal activity both abroad and within Ireland. At that stage, he was satisfied the defendant’s jurisdiction argument failed. The judgment addressed the jurisdiction issue raised on the motion; it did not determine the underlying proceeds-of-crime claim.
The defendant did not pursue the requests to set aside the 3 March order or obtain the transcript after receiving the transcript and affidavits, which showed that the plaintiff relied on alleged criminal activity in Ireland. The defendant also dropped a concern that the court had not been told he was in custody in the United Kingdom: the summons and an affidavit showed that this information had been before the court.
The judge held that the court could use its established procedure for interim injunction applications when considering an application under section 2 of the 1996 Act. The leave application for service outside Ireland and the section 2 application had been made together on 3 March 2003; the plenary summons was issued the following day.
The summons was served on 13 March 2003 at HM Prison, Elmley, in Kent, according to the affidavit of service. The order of 3 March authorised service of notice of the summons at the prison. The judge found service complied with that order, so the 12-month rule relied on by the defendant did not apply. He added that, even if it had, he would treat the service as good under the court rules because the proceedings had been brought to the defendant’s attention, and late service would be an irregularity rather than a nullity.
The judge also rejected arguments that the statutory injunction fell outside the rules governing service abroad, that service by a Garda member breached international law, and that the Hague Service Convention applied. He refused the relief sought in the motion.