The High Court refused a judicial review challenge to the continued detention of cash seized from an anonymised applicant, finding that the Director of Public Prosecutions had made a forfeiture application within the statutory two-year limit by issuing a notice of motion.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Maureen H. Clark on 31 July 2008, said the forfeiture case must return to the Circuit Court to be determined. The High Court did not decide whether the cash represented the proceeds of crime or should be forfeited.
The applicant’s Northern-registered car was stopped as it was about to board a ferry to France on 19 July 2005. Officers found £69,880 sterling in packages concealed under the back seat. The cash was seized on suspicion it represented the proceeds of criminal activity. Two days later, a District Court judge at Rathdrum, County Wicklow, authorised its detention while enquiries continued. Further detention orders were made at roughly three-month intervals, with the last expiring on 18 July 2007.
The DPP issued a notice of motion on 17 July 2007 seeking forfeiture of £69,888 sterling. The motion was returnable on 2 October 2007. It was listed for hearing that day, but the case was not reached because of the court’s workload. The applicant had appeared through a representative and served notice that he intended to cross-examine on the affidavits.
The applicant argued that a notice of motion only announced an intention to apply. In his submission, the DPP had to make the request in court while the cash was still detained; because that had not happened within two years of the initial detention order, he said the money had to be returned. He accepted that the seizure and detention had been lawful up to 18 July 2007, and that the notice had been served within the two-year period.
Justice Clark held that the Circuit Court Rules provided for a section 39 forfeiture application to be made by originating motion on notice. She concluded that “application is made” included issuing that motion and did not require an oral request to a judge. Requiring the application to be moved in court within the time limit, she said, would make compliance depend on court listings and workload. The court also noted that the applicant had not used the statutory procedure to ask the District Court to release the cash, or challenged the legality of the procedural rules.
A separate challenge to a District Court order was abandoned at the hearing. The High Court refused the remaining application, and the forfeiture issue remained for the Circuit Court.