Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Issues of fact concerning alleged proceeds of crime were a matter for trial judge
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms refusal of certiorari of the detention of cash found on two persons at an airport who were also in possession of cocaine, on the grounds that the issue of whether the applicants were 'smurfing' the money (i.e. breaking it into two amounts both below the statutory minimum under the proceeds of crime legislation) was a matter for the Circuit Court.
Birmingham P (nem diss): Judicial review - appeal from refusal in High Court - sum of money seized by Revenue Commissioners from applicants - seizure of cash at airport (as well as cocaine) - oath by customs officer that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the cash represented the proceeds of crime - detention order granted - alleged 'smurfing' of money - application for renewal of detention order - whether sums seized were below prescribed statutory minimum - s. 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, as amended by s. 20 of the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act 2005 - fair procedures - whether judge was in error in relation to the onus of proof.
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.
