The Court of Criminal Appeal has quashed Timothy (Ted) Cunningham’s ten money laundering convictions after ruling that he could rely on a Supreme Court decision invalidating the warrant used to search his home. The court proposed a retrial on counts 1 to 9, while treating count 10 as disposed of by its ruling.
Cunningham was convicted in Cork Circuit Court on 27 March 2009 and sentenced to ten years in prison. The charges concerned money said to represent proceeds of the Northern Bank robbery in Belfast on 20 December 2004. Count 10 related to £3,010,380 in sterling cash allegedly possessed at Farran, County Cork. The judgment said £2.4 million was found at his home during a search on 17 February 2005. The remaining counts concerned smaller sums allegedly transferred to other people.
The search warrant was issued by Superintendent Quilter under section 29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939. In February 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in *Damache v DPP* that the section was unconstitutional because it allowed a warrant to be issued by someone who was not independent of the investigation.
Cunningham’s appeal was still pending when that ruling was delivered. He sought and received permission to amend his appeal grounds to rely on *Damache*. The prosecution argued that he could not benefit from the ruling because he had not separately challenged the law and that his case had already reached finality with the jury’s verdict. It also relied on the delay in progressing his appeal.
The Court of Criminal Appeal rejected those arguments. It held that a conviction subject to an outstanding appeal was not final, and that Cunningham was not barred from relying on *Damache* because he had not brought separate proceedings. The court said that requiring a pre-trial challenge to the warrant or legislation would have involved uncertain legal routes and potential costs.
The court confined its decision to whether Cunningham could invoke *Damache* and the effect on his convictions. It did not decide his other appeal grounds, and made no ruling on how the decision might apply in cases with different circumstances. It said the ruling disposed of count 10 and proposed quashing all ten convictions and ordering a retrial on counts 1 to 9. The judgment does not state that a retrial was ordered on count 10.