Supreme Court affirms High Court orders for property delivery, sale proceeds distribution, and anonymity protection in criminal asset recovery case.

THE SUPREME COURT

[Appeal No: 439/2008]

[Appeal No: 427/2008]

Denham J.

Hardiman J.

Macken J.

BETWEEN/

CRIMINAL ASSETS BUREAU

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

AND

T.H.

FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT

AND

J.H.

SECOND NAMED DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AND BY ORDER OF THE COURT

T.H.

NOTICE PARTY/APPELLANT

Ruling of the Court delivered on the 25th day of March, 2011 by Denham J.

1. The Court heard these two appeals together. The appeals were brought by the second named defendant/appellant, J.H., referred

to as "the appellant", and the notice party/appellant, T.H., referred to as "the notice party".

2. The appellant appealed from the judgment of the High Court (Feeney J.) delivered on the 17th October, 2008, 24th November,

2008 and the 1st December, 2008 and the order dated the 1st December, 2008, made under s.4(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act,

1996, this is Appeal No. 439/2008, whereby it was ordered that the property the subject of the proceedings be delivered up and sold

and the balance of the proceeds of the sale to be transferred to the Minister for Finance for the benefit of the Central Fund and that

the names of the parties may be published after the 19th January 2009. A stay was ordered pending appeal.

3. These proceedings follow on earlier proceedings. In the first set of proceedings the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, sought a s.3

interlocutory order under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, the Act of 1996. A s.3 order was granted by the High Court and upheld by

this Court.

4. The notice party subsequently brought a motion to discharge or vary the s.3 order, under s.3(3) of the Act of 1996. That motion

was refused and Appeal No. 427/2008 is the notice party's appeal from that refusal.

5. The Court has had the benefit of the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties and the oral submissions made to the Court

on the 16th March, 2011.

6. After careful consideration, the Court, having read the written submissions and having heard counsel for each of the parties, can

find no error in law in the reasoning of the learned High Court judge on the issues before him. In such circumstances the Court has

decided to affirm the judgments and orders of the High Court (Feeney J.) in this matter for the reasons given, save in relation to two

matters.

7. These two matters are the issue of the publication of information tending to identify the parties, and costs. The court will hear the

parties on the issue of costs, no submissions having been heard on this matter.

8. The Court directs that vacant possession of the property be delivered up on or before the 30th June, 2011.

9. For clarity, it will be ordered that the notice party be entitled to remove the contents of the property, to include the items set out

in schedule no.2 attached to the order of the High Court on the 1st December, 2008.

10. The Court will order that, the proceedings having been heard otherwise than in public, in all the circumstances of the case,

notably the children who have been residing in the property and would be vulnerable to any publicity, that nothing be reported in the

media that would in any way disclose the identities of the parties. To protect the children this order applies to all parties.

11. The Court will order that on delivery up of vacant possession of the property the notice party be paid immediately the sum of

€6,348.69 by CAB, in respect of and in discharge of her interest in the property.

12. The Court will order that on the completion of the sale of the property that the Receiver, within seven days of the receipt of the

proceeds of sale, will pay the sum of €20,000 to the appellant, J.H.; the balance of the proceeds of sale of the property to be

transferred to the Minister for Finance for the benefit of the Central Fund.

13. The Court will hear Counsel as to any other matters relevant to the order of the Court.