Creaven v Criminal Assets Bureau

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FENNELLY J.,Mr. Justice Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 29 October 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] IESC 92
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 29 October 2004

[2004] IESC 92

THE SUPREME COURT

Murray C.J.

Denham J.

McGuinness J.

Geoghegan J.

Fennelly J.

141 & 153/04

CREAVEN & ORS v. CRIMINAL ASSETS BUREAU (CAB) & ORS

BETWEEN/

DYLAN CREAVEN, SILICON TECHNOLOGIES (EUROPE) LIMITEDAND BRADENVILLE HOLDINGS LIMITED

Applicants/Appellants

and

THE CRIMINAL ASSETS BUREAU, FELIX J. McKENNA ANDDISTRICT JUDGE DAVID ANDERSON

Respondents/Respondents

and

BETWEEN/

DYLAN CREAVEN, SILICON TECHNOLOGIES (EUROPE) LIMITEDAND BRADENVILLE HOLDINGS LIMITED

Applicants/Appellants

and

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM,IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondents/Respondents

Citations:

INTERPRETATION ACT 1937

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S79

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S22

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S78

DISTRICT JUSTICES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1923 S 2(2)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S55

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S14

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 PART VII

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S46

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S47

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S51

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S52

MCK V D 2004 2 ILRM 419

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S32

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 SIXTH SCHEDULE

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S32(3)

COURTS & COURT OFFICERS ACT 1995 S37

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S55(3)

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 1959 (STRASBOURG CONVENTION)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S55(4)

DISTRICT COURT (CRIMINAL JUSTICE) RULES 1998 SI 41/1998

DOWLING, STATE V KINGSTON (NO 2) 1937 IR 699

O'CONNOR JUSTICE OF THE PEACE P145

FOURTH CITY BUILDING SOCIETY V CHURCH WARDENS OF EASTHAM 1892 1 QB 661

PALEY LAW & PRACTICE OF SUMMARY CONVICTIONS

BATCHELOR & CO (IRL) LTD, STATE V O FLOINN & ANOR 1958 IR 155

SIMPLE IMPORTS LTD & ORS V REVENUE CMSR & ORS 2000 2 IR 243

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT 1887

BERKLEY V EDWARDS 1988 IR 217

BYRNE V GREY 1988 IR 31

R (MOORE) V O'HANRAHAN 1927 IR 406

CONSTABULARY (IRL) ACT 1836

ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS ACT 1922 S6

6 & 7 WM IV CHAPTER XIII

DISTRICT JUSTICES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1923 S2

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S67

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S68

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924 S77

PETTY SESSIONS (IRL) ACT 1851 S29

COURTS (ESTABLISHMENT & CONSTITUTION) ACT 1961 S5

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S22

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S32(2)

DCR r34

WALSH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 2002 403

RYAN V O'CALLAGHAN UNREP BARR 22.7.1987 1987/8/2214

R V ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS 1924 1 KB 171

ENTICK V CARRINGTON 1765 2 WILS 275

CONSTITUTION ART 40.5

Synopsis:

- [2004] 4 IR 455; [2005] 2 ILRM 53

The proceedings concerned the validity of search warrants issued by a District Court Judge. The search warrants related to alleged VAT fraud whereby goods could be exported and re-imported in order to collect VAT which is not returned to the Revenue. Two sets of search warrants were issued in order to search premises owned or connected to the applicants and as a result premises in Dublin, Limerick and Ennis were searched and . One set of search warrants was issued pursuant to section 55 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 and the other set was issued pursuant to section 14 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996. In the High Court the applicants contended that the warrants issued under the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 were invalid as no valid request had been transmitted from the English authorities to the Minister for Justice in Ireland. The President of the High Court held that these search warrants were invalid and the respondents appealed against this finding. In regard to the search warrants issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 it was contended by the applicants that these search warrants were invalid as the District Judge who issued the warrants was assigned to more than one district (the District Judge was sitting in the Dublin Metropolitan District and was temporarily assigned by the President of the District Court to districts in Ennis, Limerick and Cork) and was not physically present in the relevant district (apart from Dublin) when issuing the relevant search warrants. The President of the High Court held that these search warrants were valid and the applicants appealed against this finding.

Held by the Supreme Court (Fennelly J delivering judgment; Murray CJ, Denham J, McGuinness J and Geoghegan J agreeing) in delivering the following order. In relation to the section 55 warrants it was clear that the request made from the English authorities was not in accordance with the Act and therefore these warrants were invalid and dismissed the respondents' appeal. It appeared that a District Judge according to the relevant legislation could be assigned to more than one district at the same time. However it was implicit from an analysis of relevant legislation that a District Judge could not exercise his judicial power whilst sitting outside his district. The entire structure of the District Court was premised on the concept of the district. The extreme result of the powers of the President of the District Court in assigning judges might be that the entire jurisdiction of the District Court could be exercised from Dublin, which would be unacceptable. Therefore the applicants' appeal in this regard would be allowed, the warrants issued by the District Judge under the 1996 Act would be quashed excluding the warrant issued in respect of the Dublin Metropolitan area. Geoghegan J delivered a supporting judgment to the main judgment in which attention was drawn to the importance of section 78 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 regarding the issuing of warrants.

Reporter: R.F.

1 Mr. Justice Geoghegandelivered the 29th day of October 2004

2 Having read the comprehensive judgment of Fennelly J. on both the appeal and cross-appeal herein, I find myself in complete agreement with him in relation to both. I would, however, like to add a few observations of my own in relation to the appeal. There is nothing which I can usefully add in relation to the cross-appeal.

3 As Fennelly J. pointed out, the President of the High Court identified the issues affecting the jurisdiction of the District Court to issue the section 14 warrants as being twofold i.e.

"Had (Judge Anderson) jurisdiction to issue thewarrants:"

(a) the District judge being assigned to more than one district,or

(b) the District judge issuing the search warrants, while not physically present within the relevant district (except in the case of the warrant issued in the Dublin Metropolitan District)."

4 On the first of these issues, I have no doubt that, for the reasons Fennelly J. gives, a district judge may be assigned to more than one district. I would go further than the learned President. In my opinion, it was not necessary for him to rely in any way on the Interpretation Act, 1937. On a natural interpretation of the relevant statutory provision and especially in the context of what I might describe as the sister provisions in the same section "any district" may be given a singular or plural connotation.

5 Like every other statutory power conferred on a designated person, however, it must be exercised by that designated person (in this case the President of the District Court) in a proper manner and within what could reasonably be considered the intentions of the Oireachtas. I would reserve my position as to whether multiple assignments made for the purposes of one particular application would always be considered to come within the parameters of the statutory provision and, therefore, to be a proper exercise of the power. I am expressing no view as to whether an objection on this ground could have been made in this particular case to the multiple assignment as it is not an issue which was before either the High Court or this court. I am merely reserving my position in case the point could arise in future cases.

6 Given that the multiple assignment in this case cannot be impugned the real issue is the second one i.e. whether Judge Anderson would have had to sit in each particular district in order to make the order. I am in complete agreement with Fennelly J. that on any reasonable interpretation of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924and later relevant Acts dealing with the existing or former District Court e.g. the Courts of Justice Act, 1953or the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act,196139 ,, the District Court is intended to be a local court and, therefore, there is always a limited territorial jurisdiction in relation to any orders that can be made by thatcourt. This is so notwithstanding that for the first time under the 1924 Act, the jurisdictions formerly vested in Magistrates and Justices of the Peace became vested not in persons as theretofore but in a new court "the District Court of Justice". Even under the Provisions of the District Justices (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923the District Justices appointed thereunder were for all practical purposes Resident Magistrates under another name and, indeed, they are described in the Act as "Magistrates". In a theoretical sense that all changed in 1924 and these jurisdictions became vested in one District Court which indeed was given new jurisdiction. S. 79 however of the 1924 Act clearly provided that in the three named categories of cases i.e. "civil cases", "criminal cases" and "licencingcases" the jurisdiction vested in the District Court had to be exercised in particular districts connected with the particularlitigation.

7 The statutory power to issue the warrants the subject matter of this case arises under brand new legislation and no such warrant was known to the courts as of 1924. I agree with Fennelly J. that because of the overall statutory provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the District Court and how it is to be exercised, these warrants notwithstanding the silence of the statutory provision creating them must be issued within the districts wherein the premises are situate but I would not be certain that in this connection s. 78 of the...