BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> Holland v. Criminal Assets Bureau [2000] IESC 54 (7th April, 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2000/54.html Cite as: [2000] IESC 54 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
1. The
applicant, who is a prisoner in Portlaoise Prison, applied to the High Court
for liberty to issue proceedings by way of judicial review claiming
inter
alia
a declaration that the Criminal Assets Bureau Act, 1996 and the Proceeds of
Crime Act, 1996 were invalid having regard to the provisions of the
2. Constitution.
His application having been refused by the High Court, he has now appealed to
this court.
3. The
applicant has sworn an affidavit in which he says that the first named
respondents have seized a house owned by the applicant’s wife and himself
in Brittas Bay, Co. Wicklow together with the contents of the house. While he
claimed what he described as an order of prohibition restraining the first
named respondent from proceeding with the sale of the house, it appears from
the notice of appeal which he has served to this court that the house and its
contents have now in fact been sold so that that relief would, in any event, no
longer be appropriate.
4. It
is also clear, however, that the applicant has put forward arguable grounds for
claiming that certain provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 are
unconstitutional. The court is aware that the constitutionality of the 1996 was
upheld by the High Court (McGuinness J.) in
Gilligan
.v. Criminal Assets Bureau
[1998] 3 IR 185
and
its constitutionality has also been litigated in other High Court proceedings.
However, while notices of appeal were served in
Gilligan,
and, it may be, in other cases, it is clear that there has been no decision of
this court as to the constitutionality of the impugned provisions of the 1996
Act.
5. The
court will, accordingly, allow the appeal and give the applicant liberty to
apply by way of judicial review for a declaration that
