Criminal Assets Bureau v H (T) & H (J)

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeDenham J.
Judgment Date25 March 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] IESC 10
Docket Number[Appeal No: 439/2008]
CourtSupreme Court
Date25 March 2011

[2011] IESC 10

THE SUPREME COURT

Denham J.

Hardiman J.

Macken J.

[Appeal No: 439/2008]
[Appeal No: 427/2008]
Criminal Assets Bureau v H (T) & H (J)
[2011] IESC 10
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

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S4(1)

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S3

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S3(3)

CRIMINAL LAW

Proceeds of crime

Appeal - Interlocutory order - Discharge or vary - Respondent granted s 4 order for deliver up and sale of property subject matter of proceedings for benefit of Central Fund - Respondent granted application for names of parties to be published - Whether trial judge erred in law - Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 (No 30), ss 3 and 4 - Appeal refused and s 3 and s 4 Orders of High Court affirmed but reporting restrictions to remain in place (439/2008 & 427/2008 - SC - 25/3/2011) [2011] IESC 10

Criminal Assets Bureau v H (T)

Facts: The High Court had made an order pursuant to s. 4(1) Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, as amended, and a further order pursuant to s. 3 of the Act was also made, which the notice party sought to discharge or vary

Held by the Supreme Court per Denham J. (Hardiman, Macken JJ. Concurring) that the Court could find no error of law in the reasoning of the High Court on the issues in the proceedings. The Court would hear the parties on the issue of costs and directed vacant possession of the property. The Court would order the protection of the children residing in the property also.

Reporter: E.F.

Denham J.
Judgment delivered by Denham J. [nem diss]
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...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
2 cases
  • Criminal Assets Bureau v Kelly
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 November 2012
    ...v H (Unrep, Feeney J, 3/10/2007); Gilligan v Criminal Assets Bureau [1998] 3 IR 185 and Murphy v GM [2001] 4 IR 113 considered - CAB v H [2011] IESC 10, (Unrep, Supreme Court, 25/3/2011) followed - Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 (No 30), ss 2, 3, 4 and 8 - Family Law Act 1995 (No 26), s 36 - Co......
  • Criminal Assets Bureau v Routeback Media AB and Another
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 10 May 2024
    ...13th May, 1997) as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court in McK v. FC [2001] 4 IR 521, FMcK v. AF [2002] 1 IR 242, CAB v. TH & JH [2011] IESC 10 and Murphy v. Gilligan [2017] IESC 81 . At para. 82 of her judgment, the trial judge concluded that in her view, no new matters had been put ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT