The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by Ireland and the Attorney General, set aside the High Court’s orders concerning a seized Range Rover and refused judicial review. It held that possession alone did not meet the ownership test in section 1 of the Police Property Act 1897.
The judgment, delivered by the President on 14 February 2018, concerned an appeal from orders made by the High Court after it quashed a Circuit Court order forfeiting the vehicle to the State and directed its return to Glen Donoghue. The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court was wrong to grant those remedies.
Garda Enda Waters seized the Range Rover on 16 December 2013 under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1994. The Court of Appeal said the lawfulness of the seizure was not in issue. A District Court and, on appeal, the Circuit Court considered an application under the 1897 Act. Donoghue sought the vehicle’s return, saying he had bought it in the United Kingdom and producing a receipt and a vehicle keeper certificate. The certificate recorded him as keeper, not owner, and stated that it was not proof of ownership.
The Circuit Court accepted that Donoghue had possessory title but was not satisfied that he was the owner. It was also not satisfied that Santander or Bluestone had established title, and ordered the vehicle forfeited to the State. The judgment recounts evidence and submissions about the vehicle’s reported theft, a hire purchase agreement, and Bluestone’s claimed acquisition of Santander’s loans. It also records Donoghue’s position that he had not been accused of involvement in any theft.
The High Court held that the Circuit Court had applied the wrong legal test, quashed its order and directed the State to return the vehicle. On appeal, the Court of Appeal relied on the interpretation of “owner” in the earlier case Lyons & Co v Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It held that section 1 distinguishes possession from ownership and requires a claimant to establish ownership; the High Court had wrongly treated Donoghue’s possession as sufficient.
The court said it was unnecessary to decide whether judicial review could correct a Circuit Court error of law because it found no such error here. It also held that the High Court should not itself have decided the vehicle’s disposition in the judicial review proceedings. At most, it could have sent the matter back to the Circuit Court for reconsideration under the correct interpretation of the Act. The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the High Court orders and refused judicial review.