Huba and Anor v The Commissioner of an Garda Síochána and Ors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Conleth Bradley
• Judgment Date: 11 June 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 372
• Docket Number: Record No. 2023/1281JR

Between/

Vjollca Huba and Pjeter Huba

Applicants

and

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, The Garda National Immigration Bureau, Ireland and The Attorney General

First to Fourth Named Respondents

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions (Joined by Order of the Court)

Fifth Named Respondent

[2026] IEHC 372

Record No. 2023/1281JR

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial review – Proceeds of crime – Seizure – Applicants seeking reliefs by way of judicial review – Whether s. 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and its incorporation of the process under the Police (Property) Act 1897 and the subsequent seizure and detention of the cash, after its initial seizure and retention, was unlawful

Facts: The High Court (Hyland J), on 4 December 2023, granted the applicants, Ms and Mr Huba, leave to apply for judicial review. The applicants contended that whereas a 2 year limitation period post seizure of their cash may afford suitable safeguards and provide a reasonable and sufficient time to allow An Garda Síochána to properly investigate matters, in contrast, in their case, the total period of seizure and detention was approximately 4 years and 8 months. They said that this protracted period without suitable safeguards was unlawful and was exemplified by the response of D/S Collins to the applicants’ solicitor in or around August-September 2021 that the cash would not be returned until it was established whether or not it was the proceeds of crime. Therefore, the applicants contended that whilst the seizure under the Criminal Justice Act 1994 s. 38 process commenced the two year period, the invocation of the previous Criminal Justice Act 2006 s. 7 process on 12 August 2021 had no safeguards, which in effect meant that there was an additional two years and eight months to be added to the two year period which commenced on 14 April 2024. It was submitted that this was contrary to what the Oireachtas had intended where a person’s cash was seized by the authorities. The applicants sought, therefore, to contextualise their legal challenge against the entire process and time period which commenced from 12 August 2021. They contended that they had been denied procedural safeguards throughout the investigation, especially since the initial seizure of the cash on 12 August 2021 pursuant to s. 7 of the 2006 Act. It was submitted that when their cash was seized under s. 7, they were entitled to intrinsic procedural safeguards rather than the onus being put on them of having to be pro-active and being required to invoke the Police (Property) Act 1897. They argued that s. 7 of the 2006 Act operated on an assumption that cash could be detained throughout the currency of an investigation, almost ad infinitum, without oversight.

Held by the Court that it did not consider that the applicants’ substantive contentions were correct or that s. 7 of the 2006 Act and its incorporation of the process under the 1897 Act and the subsequent seizure and detention of the cash, after its initial seizure and retention, was unlawful or breached rights claimed by the applicants under the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 or provided an ineffectual remedy for the applicants (noting that it appeared to be common case that the 1897 Act application was rendered moot, save as to costs, on 14 April 2024). The Court did not consider that the applicants were entitled to the reliefs claimed by way of this application for judicial review.

The Court refused the applicants the reliefs sought by way of judicial review.

Application refused.

REDACTED

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on the 11 ^th day of June 2026

INTRODUCTION

Background

1 In 2021, An Garda Síochána commenced the Irish part of an extensive transnational investigation known as ‘Operation Wattle’ into an Albanian Organised Criminal Group suspected of alleged smuggling of illegal immigrants into the UK via Ireland.

2 This inquiry involved teams attached to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (“the GNIB”) who were investigating whether this international organised crime group allegedly trafficked illegal immigrants, primarily Albanian nationals, into Ireland and on to the UK, as well as alleged money laundering offences and the procurement and provision of false travel documentation.

3 In his Affidavit sworn on 27 ^th November 2024, Detective Garda (“D/G”) Lorcan Tighe of the GNIB stated that on foot of information received, gardaí had identified the second named Applicant as an alleged person of interest who was potentially connected to this organised crime group and began to investigate whether he had allegedly potentially committed any criminal offences.

4 As part of Operation Wattle and in order to further this investigation, on 11 ^th August 2021, Detective Sergeant (“D/S”) Anthony Collins obtained a search warrant in relation to the home of the second named Applicant at [ ████ ████████ █ ███ ██ █ █ █ █ ████] (“the premises”) which was issued by the District Court pursuant to s. 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”).

5 Arising from the subsequent search of the premises on 12 ^th August 2021, on foot of this warrant, then D/G Joseph Gavin, who now holds the rank of Sergeant, seized and retained, pursuant to s. 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”), a sum of €16,000 in cash (“the cash”) which he found in a bag in a bedroom wardrobe of the premises.

6 In exercising his powers to seize and retain the cash, D/G Gavin, pursuant to s. 7 of the 2006 Act, has averred that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the cash was evidence of, or relating to, the commission of an arrestable offence. In his Affidavit sworn on 25 ^th November 2024, Sergeant Gavin stated as follows:

“ 4. On 12 ^th August 2021, I was part of a garda team that conducted a search of ███████████████ ██████ ████, the home of the second applicant, under warrant. During the search, I seized a sum of €16,000 in cash. This quantity of cash–which consisted of 320 €50 notes – was located in a bag contained in a wardrobe in a bedroom of the house.

5. I confirm that I lawfully seized and retained the cash for use as evidence using my powers under s. 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, on the basis that there were reasonable grounds for believing that it was evidence of or relating to, the commission of an arrestable offence.

6. I cautioned the second applicant and asked him to account for the sum of cash. The second applicant stated that it belonged to the first applicant and that it was not his. After caution, the first applicant informed gardaí that the total amount of the cash was €10,000. When gardaí counted the cash before the first applicant and showed her that it amounted to €16,000, she stated that €10,000 belonged to her and €6,000 belonged to the second applicant.”

7 Thereafter, the gardaí continued to carry out an extensive, complex and prolonged investigation as to whether the second named Applicant had allegedly committed offences relating to trafficking in illegal immigrants, money laundering, forgery, and assisting an unlawful organisation. This investigation included inter alia the examination of mobile phones, financial investigations, conducting enquiries with statutory entities (such as the Department of Social Protection), and the compilation of relevant information in relation to other alleged suspects. The investigation included an extensive financial investigation in respect of both Applicants and sought inter alia to determine whether the seized cash emanated from legitimate sources of income or instead constituted the alleged proceeds of crime.

8 In his Affidavit sworn on 27 ^th November 2024, D/G Lorcan Tighe stated that after these investigative steps had been completed, the second named Applicant met by appointment with D/G Mark Henebry at Kevin Street Garda Station on 3 ^rd March 2023 and the second named Applicant was arrested on suspicion of the commission of an offence contrary to s. 72 of the 2006 Act. The second named Applicant was detained at Kevin Street Garda Station pursuant to s. 50 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 between 12.32pm and 9.51pm that day and during this time, he was interviewed twice in relation to the alleged suspected offences which were under investigation by the gardaí.

9 D/G Tighe states that after the interviews had taken place, he compiled a file for the fifth-named Respondent (“the DPP”) in respect of the investigation.

10 In or around February 2024, the gardaí submitted a file to the DPP.

11 The cash was retained pursuant to s. 7 of the 2006 Act for use as evidence in connection with any criminal proceedings which might arise from the investigation and it was stored in the offices of the GNIB at 13/14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2.

12 During the course of the investigation, the Applicants had brought proceedings on 22 ^nd September 2022 in the District Court under the Police (Property) Act 1897 (“the 1897 Act”) which is incorporated into s. 7(1) of the 2006 Act, seeking the return to them of the cash.

13 This Police (Property) Act application came before the District Court on a number of dates between 20 ^th October 2022 and 23 ^rd July 2024. The gardaí successfully applied to adjourn the application on a number of occasions on the basis that it was appropriate to retain the cash as evidence during the ongoing investigation. The District Court on each occasion agreed that it was appropriate for the gardaí to retain the cash because it was evidence in an ongoing investigation and rejected the Applicants' arguments to the contrary. (The Applicants state that on one of these dates the proceedings were in fact adjourned at their own request).

14 On 2 ^nd April 2024, the DPP directed that there would be no prosecution of the second named Applicant.

15 The DPP did not direct that the cash be seized or that ‘s. 38 proceedings’ be...