The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Paul Ledwidge’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal of judicial review concerning cash seized by gardaí from his home in August 2015. It held that the District Court order he sought to have quashed was an adjournment, not a refusal to return the money, and that judicial review was not the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
Gardaí found €23,040 and US$1,188 concealed in various places during a search under warrant. Ledwidge told gardaí the money came from betting winnings and produced betting slips worth about a quarter of the seized sum. The judgment says gardaí were not satisfied with his explanation.
An application to retain the money for three months was made under section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, as amended. Ledwidge later brought proceedings under the Police Property Act 1897 seeking its return. At a District Court hearing on 25 January 2016, a garda said a money laundering investigation was under way. The judge adjourned the application to 13 June 2016 for an update on the investigation and whether a file had been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The section 38 order was not renewed. The judgment says the cash was being held under section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 as evidence pending a criminal investigation.
Ledwidge was granted leave to seek judicial review. The High Court refused relief, noting that the District Court order had not been produced and accepting evidence that the District Court had adjourned the application. It also considered an appeal against the adjournment the more appropriate course. The mandamus claim seeking return of the money had been abandoned in the High Court.
On appeal, Ledwidge’s counsel did not challenge the search warrant or revive the mandamus claim. The appeal focused on certiorari. His counsel argued that the District Court judge had wrongly treated the ongoing investigation as preventing him from dealing with the application, and that the section 38 retention period had expired. The respondents said the challenge was premature and moot because the adjournment date had passed, and argued that Ledwidge could return to the District Court or pursue an appeal if it refused to deal with the application.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court. It said the order sought to be quashed had never been made: the District Court had adjourned the matter. The court also said the appropriate course was to attend on 13 June 2016 and establish the status of the investigation. It considered there was reason to believe the District Court would hear the application if no further information justified continued retention.
The court dismissed the appeal. It did not order the return of the cash or determine whether the investigation justified its continued retention.