Murphy v. M. (G.) [2001] IESC 82 (18 October 2001)

Murphy v. M. (G.) [2001] IESC 82 (18 October 2001)

The Supreme Court held that the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 is not unconstitutional. The Act establishes civil, not criminal, proceedings for the freezing and forfeiture of assets suspected to be proceeds of crime. The procedures do not amount to a criminal trial, and the absence of criminal law safeguards does not render the Act invalid. The Act applies retrospectively to property obtained before its enactment, as expressly provided. The High Court had jurisdiction to make the orders, including over property outside the State, and the procedures used were not defective. The Act does not violate constitutional property rights or procedural fairness, as adequate safeguards and judicial...

Citation
[2001] IESC 82
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Detective Chief Superintendent (An Garda Síochána); Defendant/respondent: GM; Defendant/respondent: PB; Defendant/respondent: P.C. Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: The Solicitor
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Asset Forfeiture, Constitutionality of Legislation, Standard of Proof, Retrospective Application of Law, Procedural Fairness
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Constitutionality of Legislation Standard of Proof Retrospective Application of Law +1 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 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Detective Chief Superintendent (An Garda Síochána)

Plaintiff/appellant

GM

Defendant/respondent

PB

Defendant/respondent

P.C. Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

The Solicitor

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 is unconstitutional
  2. 2 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to make orders under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the Act applies retrospectively to proceeds of crimes committed before its enactment

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 is not unconstitutional. The Act establishes civil, not criminal, proceedings for the freezing and forfeiture of assets suspected to be proceeds of crime. The procedures do not amount to a criminal trial, and the absence of criminal law safeguards does not render the Act invalid. The Act applies retrospectively to property obtained before its enactment, as expressly provided. The High Court had jurisdiction to make the orders, including over property outside the State, and the procedures used were not defective. The Act does not violate constitutional property rights or procedural fairness, as adequate safeguards and judicial...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Order under s. 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 prohibiting the defendants from disposing of or dealing with £300,000 affirmed
  • Appointment of receiver over the sum affirmed