The District Court refused a claimant’s application to recover €23,220 and £1,750 seized by gardaí from his home, finding that he had not established ownership and that the money had a sufficient connection to a third party’s pending trial.
Judge Brian O’Shea delivered the judgment at Dublin District Court on 3 April 2018. The application was made under the Police Property Act 1897 for delivery of property held by gardaí. The claimant had not been charged in the drug investigation.
A garda testified that on 28 October 2017 he saw the claimant involved in a transaction with a third party involving controlled drugs and cash. The third party drove away with drugs, and gardaí later stopped the car and seized drugs valued at €5,000. After the transaction, the garda followed the claimant to his home. A search there found cannabis valued at €5,000, described as being in packaging similar to that of the drugs found in the car. The cash at issue was also seized during that search under a warrant.
The third party was charged with possession of drugs for sale or supply and later failed to appear for trial, prompting a Circuit Court judge to issue an arrest warrant. A woman who attended Store Street Garda station was also charged after being questioned about the cash and drugs found at the claimant’s home; she pleaded guilty. The judgment does not identify her.
The claimant told the garda that €15,000 came from a friend as a loan and the balance from his motor sales and repair business. He told the court about receiving money from several people, including €40,000 from a friend and €40,000 or €50,000 from his wife’s parents, but said he could not identify a particular transaction accounting for the seized money. His wife testified that she had given him substantial sums for the business. The respondent argued that the claimant had not documented ownership and that the money should be retained as evidence in the investigation.
The judge found that the claimant’s explanations differed, that his account of the loans was not credible, and that the evidence did not establish his ownership of either the euro or sterling. The court also found a sufficient connection between the money and the third party’s trial. The absence of another ownership claim did not determine the application.
The court refused the requested delivery order and directed that the property be retained until the third party’s trial, with forfeiture to the State thereafter. It granted liberty to apply if the property becomes evidence in further proceedings.