Criminal Assets Bureau v L (M A)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Feeney
• Judgment Date: 20 April 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] IEHC 357
• Docket Number: [No. 15 CAB/2007]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 20 April 2009

[2009] IEHC 357

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 15 CAB/2007]

Criminal Assets Bureau v L (M A)

BETWEEN

CRIMINAL ASSETS BUREAU

APPLICANT

AND

M.A.L.

RESPONDENT

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S2

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S3(3)

LYNCH v AG & ORS 2003 3 IR 416 2004 1 ILRM 129 2003/32/7741

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Discovery

Relevancy - Alleged misconduct of applicant - Correct approach to be adopted - Overall position - Whether documents sought relevant to any matter properly before court within current proceedings - Whether court entitled to consider potential claim which could be put forward - Lynch v Attorney General [2003] 3 IR 416 applied - Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 (No 30), ss 2 and 3(3) - Application refused (2007/15 CAB - Feeney J - 20/4/2009) [2009] IEHC 357

Criminal Assets Bureau v L (M A)

Facts: The applicant sought discovery within proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996. The section 2 order was made in camera. The respondent herein made averments of an alleged leaking of information regarding the s.2 order but no proceedings were instituted in that regard. The applicant claimed that the documents sought to be discovered were relevant because it was claimed that the respondent seeks to rely on paragraph 3(3) of the Act of 1996 and to contend that the suggested and alleged conduct of the applicant in this case (leaking the contents of the s. 2 order) was such that any order that was ultimately made would “cause any other injustice”.

Held by Feeney J. in refusing the application: That in considering the issue of relevancy the court was confined to considering the matter which was before the court and not any potential claim which could be put forward on behalf of the respondent if he chose to pursue such a claim. The applicant’s argument regarding relevancy was not properly made out, as such conduct as was alleged in this case was not and could not be conduct which came within the terms of s. 3(3) of the Act of 1996, even if proved, resulting in the discharge of the order as causing an injustice for the purposes of s. 3(3) of the Act.

Reporter: L.O’S.

Mr. Justice Feeney

1 I am in a position to give judgment in relation to this because I have read the submissions in advance, and I have had the opportunity of considering the matter, and I have also had the benefit of counsel in relation to the matter.

2 It is an application for discovery brought within proceedings 2007 No. 15 CAB, and they are proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act, and the s. 2 order was madeex parte in that matter, in July of 2007. That was made in camera, as it is required by the Act. That order is made at a stage where the respondent has not been heard, and the maintenance of confidentiality in relation to that order is of considerable importance in ensuring fair procedures before the court.

3 The potential leaking of a section 2 order, if there is a leaking, is a matter which the court would take a most serious view of, and would have to inquire into in a detailed manner. But the circumstances in which this application has been made make it clear that there are no proceedings in being in relation to the issue of the leaking of the contents of the article - or the leaking of the making of the section 2 order. There is no defamation proceedings, there is no indication of any complaint being made in relation to the...