The High Court has refused a preliminary application by James Anthony Tighe to strike out proceedings brought by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on behalf of the UK government in a cross-border asset restraint case.
Mr Justice Kevin Feeney ruled on 30 April 2008 that the Minister was entitled to bring the proceedings under regulations made to facilitate international confiscation cooperation. The decision addressed who could apply for a restraint order; it did not determine whether the assets should remain restrained.
The proceedings began with an ex parte application by the Minister in October 2006. The court then ordered Tighe, also named in the judgment as Bernard Tighe, and anyone notified of the order not to dispose of or deal with specified property pending further order. The property included a dwelling house at Pettiswood, Mullingar, and money in five bank accounts.
Affidavits supporting that application said the UK government was investigating alleged involvement by Tighe and another person in a conspiracy to cheat UK Revenue of about £16 million. They also said a UK warrant had issued before Tighe allegedly left that jurisdiction, and that a UK restraint order had been obtained in January 2006 and varied in March that year. These were claims set out in the affidavits, not findings made in this preliminary ruling.
Tighe disputed the restraint order, saying in an affidavit that the listed assets were not covered by the UK order and were not proceeds of fraud or crime. That substantive challenge was due for hearing at the end of April 2008.
His preliminary motion argued that only the Director of Public Prosecutions could apply for a restraint order under the Criminal Justice Act 1994. The Minister relied on the 1994 Act and regulations made in 1996 for confiscation cooperation orders involving designated countries. The court said the regulations adapted the restraint-order process so that an application could be made by, or on behalf of, a designated country’s government. It found that the Minister could apply on the UK government’s behalf and had lawful authority to prosecute the proceedings.
The court rejected the argument that the regulations impermissibly amended primary legislation or delegated legislative power contrary to the Constitution. It refused the relief sought in Tighe’s notice of motion. The judgment did not decide the separate question of whether the restraint should be removed.