The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Michael Murphy Junior and Michael Murphy Senior against an order freezing two cash sums and two Irish Life investment bonds under proceeds-of-crime legislation.
The order was made by the High Court in November 2014 under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Peart on 18 February 2016, upheld it. The order prohibited the appellants from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the specified property; it did not determine ownership or make a disposal order.
The Criminal Assets Bureau had sought orders over £6,625 sterling and €9,000 found in a rucksack during a Garda search at 12 Clonard Avenue, Grenagh, in May 2009, and investment bonds valued at €20,000 in the senior Murphy’s name and €10,000 in the junior Murphy’s name. CAB no longer pursued an order over an Audi A4 included in its original application. The court said the statutory threshold of €13,000 applied to the total value of property covered by an order, so the two cash sums could be considered together.
The appellants argued that the search warrant used at the house was unlawful following the Supreme Court’s decision in Damache v DPP, and that evidence from the search should be excluded. The Court of Appeal held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to this section 3 application. It reasoned that the cash itself was the subject of the proceedings, whose issue was its provenance, rather than evidence being used to establish a claim against the appellants. The court said it was therefore unnecessary to decide whether to exercise discretion to admit evidence from an unlawful search.
The appellants also challenged the use of hearsay material supporting the Bureau’s belief that the property represented proceeds of crime. The court upheld its admission for that purpose, while emphasizing that such material could be tested in cross-examination and that its weight was for the court to assess.
On the bonds, the court found there was sufficient evidence of substantial account lodgements not explained by known legitimate income to provide reasonable grounds for the Bureau officer’s belief. It noted that the appellants had not supplied rebutting evidence that persuaded the court. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s freezing order in place.