Cassidy -v- Comissioner of An Garda Siochana & ors [2014] IEHC 386 (29 July 2014)

Cassidy -v- Comissioner of An Garda Siochana & ors [2014] IEHC 386 (29 July 2014)

The applicant is not entitled to disclosure of the un-redacted sworn information grounding the freezing order under s. 17(2) of the 2010 Act. The burden of proof in an application to lift a freezing order under s. 19 rests on the applicant, who is best placed to demonstrate the source of the funds. The District Judge was administering justice, and hearings prior to June 2013 held in private were in breach of Article 34.1, but this does not entitle the applicant to a remedy as the orders have been replaced. The District Court judge has jurisdiction to determine whether disclosure of un-redacted information is required, but on the merits, such disclosure is not required for the applicant to...

Citation
[2014] IEHC 386
Parties
Applicant: Harry Cassidy; First Respondent: Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Second Respondent: Judge Cormac Dunne; Third Respondent: Ireland and Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Certiorari Regarding Disclosure of Un Redacted Sworn Information Grounding Freezing Order
Outcome
Application for certiorari granted on the narrow ground that the District Judge has jurisdiction to determine entitlement to disclosure; substantive relief for disclosure refused.
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Freezing Orders, Property Rights, Fair Procedures, Disclosure, Administration of Justice, Proportionality, Equality of Arms
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Law Money Laundering Freezing Orders Property Rights Fair Procedures Disclosure +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Cassidy

Applicant

Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

First Respondent

Judge Cormac Dunne

Second Respondent

Ireland and Attorney General

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Certiorari Regarding Disclosure of Un Redacted Sworn Information Grounding Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to disclosure of the un-redacted sworn information grounding a freezing order under s. 17(2) of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge was administering justice and whether hearings should have been held in public
  3. 3 Whether the interference with property rights was proportionate and in accordance with constitutional and ECHR standards

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is not entitled to disclosure of the un-redacted sworn information grounding the freezing order under s. 17(2) of the 2010 Act. The burden of proof in an application to lift a freezing order under s. 19 rests on the applicant, who is best placed to demonstrate the source of the funds. The District Judge was administering justice, and hearings prior to June 2013 held in private were in breach of Article 34.1, but this does not entitle the applicant to a remedy as the orders have been replaced. The District Court judge has jurisdiction to determine whether disclosure of un-redacted information is required, but on the merits, such disclosure is not required for the applicant to...

Court Disposition

Application for certiorari granted on the narrow ground that the District Judge has jurisdiction to determine entitlement to disclosure; substantive relief for disclosure refused.

Orders

  • Order of certiorari quashing the District Judge's decision that he lacked jurisdiction to determine entitlement to disclosure of un-redacted sworn information.
  • No order requiring disclosure of un-redacted sworn information to the applicant.