The High Court has refused two judicial review applications challenging a District Court order that temporarily extended the detention of €8,150 seized from two men at Dublin Airport. The order had expired and been replaced by a later detention order, and the High Court said quashing it would serve no practical purpose.
Mr Justice White delivered judgment on 24 February 2017. The applications by Adam Howe and Laurence Keane were heard together. They sought to quash an order made on 5 February 2016 under section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, authorising detention of the cash until 23 March 2016 while its origin was investigated.
The cash was seized on 8 August 2015, when the men were preparing to fly from Dublin to Ibiza. The judgment records that €3,900 was taken from Howe and €4,250 from Keane, with €200 returned to each. Cocaine was found in each man’s checked baggage. The Revenue officer’s stated grounds for suspecting the money was linked to crime included the men travelling together, the absence of documents supporting the cash’s source, and his belief that the sums might have come from one source or been intended for one use. Those were grounds advanced by the officer, not findings of the High Court.
The applicants argued, among other things, that each individual sum was below the statutory threshold and that combining the amounts was an abuse of process. The High Court said the aggregation issue had already been determined at an earlier District Court hearing and was not a valid basis to quash the February order. It left the applicants free to raise the issue in the separate cash forfeiture proceedings in the Circuit Court.
The court found that the District Court judge had misunderstood the procedure by insisting that the applicants attend and give evidence about the money. Section 38 did not require them to explain its source or give sworn evidence. The judge’s insistence also restricted their counsel’s cross-examination of the investigating officer. However, the High Court accepted that the judge intended to allow more time for a fuller hearing, and found that the officer’s sworn evidence provided sufficient grounds for the temporary detention order.
By the time of the judicial review, the challenged order had expired and a later order had replaced it. The High Court considered the February order temporary, found that it made no adverse final finding against the applicants, and concluded that they had not been prejudiced in the eventual forfeiture proceedings. Mr Justice White refused both applications for certiorari.