Criminal Assets Bureau v Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham C.J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 27 April 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IESCDET 53
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 27 April 2016

[2016] IESCDET 53

An Chúirt Uachtarach

The Supreme Court

DETERMINATION

Denham C.J.

Charleton J.

O'Malley J.

THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 AND 2005

Between:

CRIMINAL ASSETS BUREAU

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

AND

MICHAEL MURPHY JR

AND

MICHAEL MURPHY SENIOR

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS

AND

AMY FORREST

NOTICE PARTY

APPLICATION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION

RESULT: The Court makes an order allowing an appeal to this Court under Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution from the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 18th February 2016.

REASONS:

1 This determination concerns an application brought by the applicants Michael Murphy Jr and Michael Murphy Senior who seek a determination under Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution to allow an appeal to this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 18th February 2016: judgment of Peart J, Finlay Geoghegan and Irvine JJ, agreeing; [2016] IECA 40. This, in turn, was an appeal from the decision of Birmingham J in the High Court, delivered on the 7th November 2014 [2014] IEHC 583.

2 The background is that Michael Murphy Jr was found on 28th May 2009 in possession of a number of firearms. The gardaí sought and obtained a warrant pursuant to section 29 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 to search his house in Cork, where they found cash of €9,000 and STG£6,625. A conviction on firearms offences followed with a sentence of six years imprisonment. The Criminal Assets Bureau then obtained a temporary order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 freezing the assets of the Murphys. Following the death of Feeney J, the trial as to whether certain assets were the proceeds of crime was delayed. The point in relation to the power of search was raised before Birmingham J who held that the exclusionary rule for unconstitutionally obtained evidence, as it was then understood, did not apply. Consequently, Birmingham J made orders under section 3 of the Act of 1996, and the order was perfected on 25th November 2014.

3 In the Court of Appeal, Peart J held that ‘the exclusionary rule is simply inapplicable to such applications.’ It is this issue which the applicants seek to challenge.

4 Article 34 of the Constitution provides for the public administration of justice; describes the courts established by the Constitution and those which may be established by law; provides for the full and original jurisdiction of the High Court; and under Article 34.2 establishes the Court of Appeal and under Article 34.5.3° sets out its appellate jurisdiction. This reads:

4 1° The Court of Appeal shall—

i save as otherwise provided by this Article, and

ii with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law,

have appellate jurisdiction from all decisions of the High Court, and shall also have appellate jurisdiction from such decisions of other courts as may be prescribed by law.

5 Article 34.4 of the Constitution also provides for the finality of decisions of the Court of Appeal, save for appeals that may be taken to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Court of Appeal. This is set out in Article 34.5.3° and 4° of the Constitution. The former relates to appeals where there has been a determination by the Court of Appeal and the latter where a litigant seeks to come directly from the High Court to the Supreme Court. The article relevant to this appeal, that where the Court of Appeal has already given judgment on a matter, is now quoted:

3° The Supreme Court shall, subject to such

regulations as may be prescribed by law, have appellate jurisdiction from a decision of the Court of Appeal if the Supreme Court is satisfied that—

i the decision involves a matter of general public importance, or

ii in the interests of justice it is...