The High Court has quashed a District Court decision refusing disclosure sought by a man whose credit union account had been subject to repeated orders restricting transactions during a money-laundering investigation.
In a judgment delivered on 21 June 2013, President of the High Court Kearns held that the District Court had not given sufficiently specific reasons for refusing the disclosure application. The High Court did not order disclosure or decide whether the District Court had power to do so. It quashed the decision because the basis for the refusal could not be identified.
The applicant held an account at Tallaght West Credit Union. A Garda direction restricting transactions was issued on 10 May 2012, followed by a District Court order the next day, which ran to 7 June. Further orders were obtained from time to time, and an order remained in force through the hearing of the applicant’s application.
The applicant sought the sworn information and supporting material underlying the orders, saying he needed it to challenge them under section 19 of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. That section allows an affected person to apply to have an order revoked. Gardaí declined to provide the material, citing the risk that disclosure would prejudice an ongoing investigation.
On 20 August 2012, the District Court judge said he had jurisdiction to hear an application for disclosure but refused it as premature while the investigation continued and before charges had been brought. The applicant then brought judicial review proceedings, arguing that he could not fairly challenge the orders without knowing the grounds for them.
The respondents argued that the applicant could seek to discharge the statutory onus by showing that the money in the account came from legitimate sources. They also relied on statutory limits on disclosure, including the protection of suspicious transaction reports and material whose disclosure could prejudice an investigation.
Kearns acknowledged the public interest in protecting live criminal investigations. He said that concern could limit what documents might be disclosed, but did not rule out an application for disclosure. The judgment says the District Court’s decision did not make clear whether the judge had refused disclosure because of privilege or statutory limits, believed he lacked jurisdiction, or considered the application wrongly framed.
The High Court concluded that the refusal had no clear rationale and that describing the application as premature was not a sufficient reason, since the statutory route for relief under section 19 was available only while the investigation continued. The District Court decision was quashed. The High Court made no finding on whether disclosure should ultimately be granted.