Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in judicial review proceedings, refuses to quash decision of District judge to temporarily detain monies as proceeds of crime for a period of three months, on the grounds that, notwithstanding the fact that the judge misunderstood certain evidential matters and restricted cross-examination at one point in the hearing, he did genuinely want to give the applicant time to make his arguments against such detention; he did not treat the application to detain as a rubber-stamping exercise; and, where the order is a temporary and not a final, there is no appreciable level of prejudice suffered by the applicant in the making of the order itself.
Judicial review - order of District Court detaining monies as proceeds of crime for a period of three months - conduct of hearing - transcript of hearing - intervention of District Court Judge - Judge made it a requirement of the hearing that the applicant himself be present before the court alongside his counsel - statutory provisions regarding detention of monies - concept of 'smurfing' - fair procedures - whether hearing a 'rubber stamping exercise' - whether a reversal of the burden of proof - aggregation of monies determined by a different Judge on a prior date - issue not determined before respondent - ample evidence to make determination was provided to the court - adjournment offered to deal with substantive issues - not a rubber stamping exercise - Judge misunderstood some of his responsibilities in respect of the procedure but genuinely wanted to give the hearing some time - whether proceedings moot where orders now spent - discretionary remedy of judicial review - misunderstanding of evidential burden insufficient to ground order of certiorari of an order which is spent - respondents not prejudiced by temporary order - application refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now