The High Court has dismissed a constitutional and human rights challenge to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, finding that the proceedings amounted to a frivolous and vexatious abuse of process.
Mr Justice Hanna delivered the judgment on 15 January 2008, determining preliminary issues in a case brought by two anonymised plaintiffs, T.K. and J.B., against Ireland and the Attorney General. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the Act, or parts of it, were unconstitutional and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Their challenge followed earlier proceedings under the Act that led to a freezing order over a dwelling house and a motor vehicle apparently jointly owned by them. The house was auctioned in July 2002, and a disposal order was made in 2005 transferring the sale proceeds to the Minister for Finance.
The defendants argued that the new proceedings were bound to fail, improperly challenged earlier Supreme Court decisions, and sought to raise arguments that could have been made in the earlier litigation. They also argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge provisions of the Act that had not been applied to them.
Mr Justice Hanna found that the constitutionality of the Act had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in Murphy v G.M. He also concluded that the plaintiffs’ current case, apart from their Convention claim, repeated material arguments raised in the earlier proceedings. Although no note of the Supreme Court’s ex tempore judgment in July 2002 had been provided, he inferred from the evidence and submissions in the earlier case that the plaintiffs’ claims had been rejected.
The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ claim under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 because that legislation came into force after the events they complained of and, following a Supreme Court decision, could not apply retrospectively.
On standing, the judge accepted that the plaintiffs could seek a monetary remedy even though a disposal order had already been made. He said this point did not assist them in light of his conclusions on the other issues.
The court therefore ruled for the defendants on the preliminary issues, including that the proceedings were an abuse of process. The judgment determined those preliminary matters; it did not make a new disposal order concerning the property.