The Court of Appeal has refused Timothy Cunningham’s application for more time to appeal a High Court decision that rejected his judicial review claims concerning money seized from his home and later forfeited.
The court delivered its judgment on 5 June 2019. It said the underlying dispute arose from the Northern Bank robbery in December 2004. Cunningham had sought orders requiring the Garda Commissioner and the Criminal Assets Bureau to explain the legal basis for seizing, detaining and distributing the money. He also sought declarations that the seizure and detention were unlawful and that his property rights had been infringed.
The High Court refused those remedies. It found Cunningham had not established a basis to extend time for the judicial review proceedings and had not shown that the money belonged to him after the forfeiture order was made.
The Court of Appeal considered only whether to extend the deadline for appealing that High Court decision. Cunningham’s solicitor said in an affidavit that Cunningham had decided to appeal within the permitted 28 days, but that raising funds was difficult. The affidavit said the required stamp duty fees were transferred to the solicitor’s office on 1 April 2019. The court noted that the affidavit did not address whether there was an arguable appeal ground or whether a mistake explained the late filing.
The court also considered the history of the forfeiture order. According to the chronology adopted from the High Court judgment, £2.4 million was removed during a search of Cunningham’s home on 16 February 2005. He was later convicted on charges connected to the robbery; that order was quashed in April 2013. In February 2014, after a retrial, he pleaded guilty to two remaining counts and a forfeiture order was made on 27 February 2014. The appeal court noted he had not objected to that order when it was made and did not challenge it until shortly before the High Court hearing.
The court said Cunningham had not shown an arguable ground of appeal or that the failure to appeal on time resulted from something in the nature of a mistake. Although the requested extension was short, the proposed challenge had to be viewed against the 2014 forfeiture order. The court was not persuaded that extending time would serve the interests of justice and refused the application. It did not determine a fresh claim to ownership of the money.