The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Byrne’s appeal against a confiscation order covering €40,253.62 held in three bank accounts, leaving the order made by the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in place.
The appeal concerned the procedure and evidence used in an inquiry under the Criminal Justice Act 1994. Byrne had been convicted in March 2010 of possessing diamorphine, contrary to section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, and sentenced to 17 years in prison. The judgment says the drugs seized were valued at approximately €6 million.
The Director of Public Prosecutions sought confiscation of the full balance of Byrne’s three accounts. At the hearing, the trial judge required Byrne to say which allegations in four sets of material he accepted or disputed, and what he relied on to refute disputed allegations. Byrne rejected all the allegations. The judge also heard evidence from forensic accountant Ms Massey, who was cross-examined about her analysis of the accounts.
Massey’s analysis, as summarised in the judgment, put Byrne’s declared net income during the period at about €43,000 and his net spending at about €188,000. The spending figure excluded many ordinary day-to-day expenses. Byrne’s case was that the funds were more likely to have come from “nixers”, or work in the black economy. The trial judge found the prosecution’s explanation—that the funds represented drug dealing proceeds—overwhelmingly more likely and said no valid or credible explanation for the money had been provided.
On appeal, Byrne argued that the Director’s statement under section 10 did not itself prove the truth of its contents. The Court of Appeal agreed with that proposition, but said it did not resolve what happened at the inquiry. It held that the trial judge had properly used the statutory procedure requiring Byrne to indicate what he accepted and disputed. The appeal court also said Massey could make inquiries and consider available material in forming her analysis, and that she had given evidence and faced cross-examination.
The court concluded that the trial judge’s finding was open to him and supported by ample evidence. It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the confiscation order. The decision concerned the confiscation inquiry and appeal; the judgment does not describe a new criminal trial or impose a further sentence.