Coakley -v- Garda Eddery

• Judge: O'Shea J.
• Judgment Date: 30 January 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEDC 9
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: District Court (Ireland)

THE DISTRICT COURT

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT

In the Matter of the Police Property Act 1897, the

Criminal Justice Act 1951 and an Application for the

Return of Property in the Possession of An Garda Siochana

NOLEEN COAKLEY

APPLICANT

- AND -

GARDA BRENDAN EDDERY

RESPONDENT

Judgment delivered by Judge Brian O’Shea at Dublin District Court on the 30th day of

January 2018

1. The Applicant seeks the return of a Breitling watch with an agreed value of €3,500 that

was seized by the Respondent from her son, Nathan Coakley.

2. Subsection 1(1) of the Police Property Act 1897 provides that “Where property has come

into the possession of the police in connexion with any criminal charge … a court of

summary jurisdiction may, on application, either by an officer or by a claimant of the

property, make an order for the delivery of the property to the person appearing to the

magistrate or court to be owner thereof, or, if the owner cannot be ascertained, make

such order with respect to the property as to the magistrate or the court may seem

meet.”

3. Section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act 1951 provides: “An order may be made under

section 1 of the Police Property Act, 1897, for the disposal of property in the possession of

the Garda Síochána although no person has been charged with an offence in connection

with it.”

4. The Respondent testified that he had reason to arrest Mr Coakley. He was brought to

Finglas garda station. He was wearing an expensive Breitling watch that the Respondent

did not believe belonged to him, so he seized it. No issue was taken with the lawfulness

of the arrest or seizure. No owner has come forward to claim the watch. The Respondent

testified that Mr Coakley initially told him that the watch was an heirloom but later

asserted that he had won it. He also testified that after a court appearance at

Blanchardstown District Court Mr Coakley appeared to him to be vexed that the watch

was not being returned to him immediately, and followed him around Blanchardstown.

He further stated that Mr Coakley stayed at some distance behind him and was on the

telephone at the time. The Respondent informed the court that at no stage did he

approach Mr Coakley. On two subsequent occasions he asked Mr Coakley to provide him

with some proof that he inherited or won the watch, or had the means to purchase it. Mr

Coakley did not do any of those things.

5. Under cross-examination the Respondent confirmed that there was no evidence that he

could present to the court to prove a competing claim of ownership, or that the watch was

the proceeds of crime. It was put to him that the watch, and another similar watch, were

left to the Applicant by her late husband to give to their sons, and that the Applicant was