Criminal Assets Bureau -v- Murphy & anor [2018] IESC 12 (27 February 2018)

Criminal Assets Bureau -v- Murphy & anor [2018] IESC 12 (27 February 2018)

The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule as formulated in DPP v JC does not automatically apply to civil in rem proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The fact that property was seized on foot of an invalid warrant does not, without more, require its exclusion from such proceedings. The constitutional principles underpinning the exclusionary rule must be balanced against the nature and purpose of in rem proceedings, and the administration of justice does not require exclusion in these circumstances.

Citation
[2018] IESC 12
Parties
Respondent: Criminal Assets Bureau; Appellant: Michael Murphy Junior; Appellant: Michael Murphy Senior; Notice Party: Amy Forrest
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Forfeiture / Proceeds of Crime / Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Exclusionary Rule, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Proceeds of Crime, In Rem Proceedings, Constitutional Rights, Burden of Proof
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Criminal Law Evidence Exclusionary Rule Illegally Obtained Evidence Proceeds of Crime In Rem Proceedings +2 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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criminal Assets Bureau

Respondent

Michael Murphy Junior

Appellant

Michael Murphy Senior

Appellant

Amy Forrest

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Forfeiture / Proceeds of Crime / Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the exclusionary rule for unconstitutionally or illegally obtained evidence apply in civil in rem proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996?
  2. 2 Is there a rule of law requiring exclusion of evidence obtained by illegal entry in civil proceedings?
  3. 3 Does the exclusionary rule apply where the property is the subject matter of the proceedings rather than evidence?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule as formulated in DPP v JC does not automatically apply to civil in rem proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The fact that property was seized on foot of an invalid warrant does not, without more, require its exclusion from such proceedings. The constitutional principles underpinning the exclusionary rule must be balanced against the nature and purpose of in rem proceedings, and the administration of justice does not require exclusion in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Court of Appeal set aside
  • Matter remitted to the High Court for further consideration in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment