The High Court upheld the forfeiture of €26,000 seized from Stephen Fowler after finding, on the balance of probabilities, that the money represented the proceeds of crime or was intended for use in criminal conduct.
The appeal concerned a Circuit Court order sought by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994. The cash had been seized from Mr Fowler under section 38 of the Act on 19 July 2017. The judgment does not state the date of the Circuit Court order.
Mr Fowler argued that a District Court order made on 20 October 2017 to continue detaining the cash was out of time because an earlier detention period had expired. The High Court rejected that argument. It interpreted the District Court’s 21 July 2017 order as authorising detention for three calendar months, expiring at midnight on 20 October. It said the order’s reference to 19 October was a miscalculation and surplus wording. The 20 October renewal was therefore made while the earlier authorisation remained in force.
The judge also said that, even if the renewal order had been invalid, the challenge should have been raised in the District Court or pursued through judicial review at the time. The detention applications had been made on notice to Mr Fowler, but he had not challenged the District Court’s jurisdiction then. The court would not entertain that objection during the later forfeiture proceedings.
On the forfeiture question, the judge considered the circumstances of the seizure and Mr Fowler’s explanations to gardaí. A brown paper bag containing two bundles of notes was found in a toolbox in his van. The cash totalled €26,000. The judgment says Mr Fowler initially told gardaí he was keeping the money for his father, then declined to provide his father’s details or attend the station to oversee the count. He later gave an affidavit offering other explanations, including a personal injuries award, a car sale and redundancy money.
The judge described those explanations as improbable and found no evidence supporting a legitimate source or purpose for the cash. He disregarded some material relied on by the DPP, including belief-type material and an unsigned Revenue certificate. Mr Fowler gave no evidence in court, and the DPP’s evidence was not challenged. The court concluded that the only inference on the balance of probabilities was that the cash was criminal proceeds or intended for criminal use. The judgment records that conclusion and the forfeiture appeal; it makes no finding that Mr Fowler was convicted of a criminal offence.