The refusal by the Criminal Assets Bureau to deliver a "statement of claim" in a case where no allegations of criminality were being made was a mistaken view of the law, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Until yesterday, CAB had maintained that as a general rule, a statement of its case against a person was not a prerequisite under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. This was accepted by the High Court.
Mr Justice Fennelly, giving one of the two judgments of the five-judge court, said the legislation permitted a person to be deprived of the use of what appeared to be his property based on allegations of the most serious character, potentially supported by hearsay evidence.
JF, the man in this case, argued he was disadvantaged by not being supplied with a statement of claim as he could not ask CAB to give particulars of the claim against him. He also argued he was prevented from putting in his defence because of the absence of a statement of claim.
As CAB had availed of a legal procedure described as a plenary summons to initiate the case against the man, he was entitled to seek a statement of claim and CAB was bound to deliver one, Mr Justice Fennelly said.
In July 2000, the judge said, a plenary summons was issued by CAB against AF and JF and the appeal to the Supreme Court concerned JF. CAB sought orders related to a number of land holdings and bank accounts. JF was alleged to be the joint holder of two bank accounts. No allegations of criminality were made against him.
The High Court judge decided to follow the general practice of CAB not having to issue a statement of claim and JF appealed to the Supreme Court.
Mr Justice Fennelly said hearsay and thus oral evidence was the main evidence in CAB cases. CAB claimed it had sought a provisional interlocutory order (under section 3 of the 1996 Act) against JF until a disposal order was made under section 4.
(Section 4 states where an interlocutory order has been in force for "not less than seven years" in relation to specified property, the court can direct that all or part of the property can be transferred to the Minister for Justice.)
In granting an interlocutory order under section 3, the court decided that the property in fact represented the proceeds of crime.
The section 3 order remained in force unless either CAB applied to have it discharged or the person involved showed to the court's satisfaction that the property was not the proceeds of crime, the judge noted.
The court gave CAB time to submit a statement of claim.