The High Court has rejected a Romanian family’s judicial review challenge to a District Court order allowing Revenue to detain €38,800 seized from Claudio Pop at Dublin Airport. The court held that the initial application to continue detention could be heard without advance notice and found no grounds to quash the order.
Revenue officers seized the money on 2 April 2009 as Pop was preparing to travel to Romania. The next day, District Judge Bryan Smyth authorised its detention for three months under section 38(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1994. The judgment records that a Revenue officer told the District Court she suspected the cash represented proceeds of crime, citing matters including Pop’s imminent departure, information he gave about the amount and his employment, and bank statements that did not support his account that the money came from savings. These were the officer’s stated grounds for suspicion, not a finding that the cash was criminal proceeds.
Pop was present at the hearing. The judge asked whether he spoke English, heard the officer’s evidence and asked Pop if he wished to say anything. Pop declined. His solicitor arrived after the detention order had been made. The District Court later refused to revisit the order. A separate High Court application for release of money for family support had also been refused.
The family sought to quash the detention order and argued that Pop should have had notice and legal representation at the initial hearing. Justice Mary Irvine ruled that an application under section 38(2) was intended to be dealt with ex parte, given the requirement to make a decision within 48 hours of seizure. She said the order was not a final decision or a finding of wrongdoing, and that an affected person could apply under section 38(5) for release of the cash. The judgment notes that the family had not made such an application.
The court also found that Pop had been given an opportunity to address the District Court and had not told the judge that he had retained a solicitor or asked for an adjournment. It found no evidence that the respondents had deprived him of legal representation, and held that he had not shown how his proposed submissions would have changed the outcome.
The family’s constitutional challenge was abandoned at the hearing. The High Court rejected the claims based on fair procedures and Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and dismissed the application for judicial review. The judgment addressed the order authorising detention; it did not decide whether the cash was proceeds of crime or order its forfeiture.