The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Stefan and Tammy Saunders against an order restricting dealings with their family home at Hazelbury Park, Dublin 15, after finding that neither of their two grounds of appeal had been made out.
The order was made by the High Court under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. It prohibits the appellants and anyone with notice of it from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the property or reducing its value. The appeal judgment says the order concerns Hazelbury Park only. It does not transfer the house to the State; a disposal order under section 4 was not in issue.
The Bureau had argued in the High Court that the house had been acquired, in whole or in part, using proceeds of crime. The High Court found that the Bureau had established a prima facie case and that the appellants had not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the property was not proceeds of crime. The appellants did not challenge the finding that a prima facie case had been established.
On the first ground, the appellants argued that the High Court judge had effectively tried the first appellant for alleged criminal conduct without the protections of a criminal trial. The Court of Appeal held that proceedings under the 1996 Act are civil and directed at the status and source of property. The first appellant was not facing a criminal charge, and the proceedings could not result in a criminal conviction or sentence. The court also rejected the argument that the judge’s findings exceeded the scope of the Act. It said the judge had assessed whether the appellants had accounted for the funds used to acquire the property, with the Bureau’s evidence and the appellants’ explanations considered in that civil process.
The second ground concerned delay. The appellants said that an earlier Bureau investigation in 2007–08 and the later proceedings had left them without records, memories or witnesses needed to answer the case. The Court of Appeal accepted that sufficiently compelling prejudice caused by delay could, in some circumstances, amount to a serious risk of injustice. But it found the claimed prejudice was general and unsupported by specific evidence of what had been lost. It also noted that the earlier investigation was directed at another person, although information about the appellants came to light.
The court dismissed the appeal. It proposed that the Bureau receive its costs, subject to any party seeking a different costs order within 14 days of electronic delivery of the judgment, after which a short costs hearing could be scheduled if needed.