- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Reilly v Director of Public Prosecutions & anor
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant’s vehicle was stopped by customs officers at The City port on 19 July 2005. A total of £69,880 was discovered hidden under the rear seat and seized under section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 (as amended) (“the 1994 Act”) on suspicion that it represented the proceeds of crime.
On 21 July 2005, Judge [C] of the District Court authorised detention of the cash for up to three months under section 38(2). Further three-month extension orders were granted at regular intervals, the last order expiring on 18 July 2007. The Appellant never invoked section 38(5) to seek the cash’s return.
On 17 July 2007, Respondent 1 issued and served an originating notice of motion in the Circuit Court under section 39 seeking forfeiture of the cash. The motion, compliant with Order 69 of the Circuit Court Rules (S.I. 448/2004), was returnable for 2 October 2007. An adjournment request by the Appellant was refused, but the matter was not reached and was put back to 5 November 2007.
That same day, the Appellant obtained leave in the High Court to seek judicial review, principally alleging that no section 39 application had been “made” within the statutory two-year detention limit and that continued detention was unlawful. The High Court (Judge [B]) dismissed the claim. The present Supreme Court appeal challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an originating notice of motion issued and served within two years of the initial detention constitutes an “application made” for forfeiture under section 39(1) of the 1994 Act.
- Whether, consequently, the cash continued to be lawfully detained under section 38(3A) pending final determination of the forfeiture proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- “Application made” in section 39(1) requires the prosecutor physically to stand up in court and move the motion; mere issuance and service of a notice is only a notice of intention.
- Because the motion was not orally moved within two years, the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction and the cash must be returned.
- The forfeiture regime is penal in nature; any ambiguity must be resolved narrowly in the Appellant’s favour.
Respondents' Arguments
- The 1994 Act is procedural and not penal; strict penal construction is inappropriate.
- Irish procedural law widely recognises that time stops when originating process is issued (e.g., judicial review). The same principle applies here.
- The Circuit Court Rules expressly require an originating motion on notice; compliance with those rules (issue and service) suffices to constitute an application.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| KSK Enterprises Ltd v. An Bord Pleanála [1994] 2 I.R. 128 | Distinction between motions ex parte and motions on notice; an application on notice is “made” when notice is given. | Used to support the conclusion that a section 39 motion on notice is made upon issue and service, not upon oral moving. |
| McK. v. F. [2005] IESC 6 | Proceedings are “brought” when the originating notice issues. | Cited by the High Court and accepted implicitly by the Supreme Court to analogise time-stopping effect of issuing process. |
| DPP v. David Anthony England [2011] IESC 16 | In absence of procedural rules, service outside detention period meant no valid application; emphasised necessity of notice. | Distinguished: unlike England, Order 69 now provides clear rules; here both issue and service occurred within time. |
| DPP v. Gerard Alphonsus Humphreys & Ors [2014] IEHC 539 | Reaffirmed that, where a statutory limit applies, service on all necessary parties within that limit is essential. | Quoted to show consistency with the Court’s view that timely service completes the making of the application. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge [A], delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court, adopted a textual approach:
- The phrase “application made” is neither obscure nor ambiguous; it must be given its ordinary meaning unless the statute dictates otherwise.
- Order 69, enacted under section 42 of the 1994 Act, prescribes that an application for forfeiture “shall be made by originating motion on notice.” The rule therefore defines the procedural act that constitutes an application.
- A motion on notice is “made” when it is issued and served on all parties entitled to notice. This aligns with KSK Enterprises and the general Irish procedural principle that issuing originating process stops statutory time.
- The Appellant’s proposed requirement of a physical oral application would render the statutory two-year limit dependent on court scheduling—an outcome the legislature could not have intended.
- Both issuance and service of the notice of motion occurred on 17 July 2007, one day inside the two-year window. Consequently, section 38(3A) mandated continued detention until final determination.
- No penal consequences arise from sections 38–39; the provisions are procedural. Strict penal construction therefore does not apply.
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed.
By confirming that an originating motion on notice constitutes an “application made” once it is issued and served within the statutory period, the Court upheld the High Court’s refusal of judicial review. The cash remains lawfully detained pending the Circuit Court’s forfeiture determination. The decision clarifies procedural timing under sections 38 and 39 but does not establish new substantive precedent beyond that clarification.
Alert