Louth pair acquitted of operating diesel laundering factory await outcome of appeal

A Louth pair acquitted of operating a ‘diesel laundering factory’ must wait to hear whether their acquittals will be overturned by the Court of Appeal.

The two accused, whose details cannot be published as they are not technically before the courts, were charged with one count each of keeping prohibited goods contrary to Section 102(3)(c) of the Finance Acts, 1999, as substituted by Section 98 of the Finance Act 2010.

In Louth Circuit Criminal Court last year, the pair’s lawyers successfully argued that a warrant used to search their premises was invalid, and all evidence obtained on foot of the warrant ought to be excluded. The ruling resulted in their acquittals by the trial judge.

The Director of Public Prosecutions moved to appeal their acquittals on a point of law under Section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010. Such appeals have become more frequent in recent years, the Court of Appeal has commented.

Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Vincent Heneghan SC, submitted that the Circuit Court judge in Louth erroneously excluded compelling evidence that the couple had ‘paraphernalia’ associated with diesel laundering in their possession.

The trial judge had ruled that the application for the search warrant was misleading in an important aspect. He ruled that the Revenue Officer who obtained the warrant had no knowledge to hold a suspicion other than that her superiors had received information from a reliable source. He ruled that the District Judge wouldn’t have issued the warrant if he ‘ knew the truth’.

Mr Heneghan said the Circuit Court judge erroneously equated sworn information to evidence.

He said the District Judge had asked the Revenue Officer whether she believed the information was correct and whether she had signed the information. She answered ‘yes’ to both questions.

Mr Heneghan said it was the District Judge’s satisfaction that was under scrutiny. He said the knowledge did not have to be ‘wholly comprehensive’ as long as it was ‘sufficient’.

Lawyers for the pair submitted that there was a ‘failure to be candid’ with the District Judge who issued the warrant.

Garnet Orange SC, for one of the acquitted pair, said there was simply insufficient evidence. He said the Revenue Officer had simply accepted what she was told by her superiors.

He said the Revenue Officer had gotten a smell of diesel and saw a second entrance out of a shed. It was ‘essentially confirmation bias,’ Mr Orange said.

‘I’m guessing most farmyards contain diesel machinery of all shapes and sizes,’ Mr Orange said.

He said the District Court judge ‘required more’ to be sure the information was coming from a credible source who did not have a vested interest in the outcome of the investigation.

Mr Justice John Edwards, who sat with Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy and Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, said the court would reserve its judgment.

The DPP are seeking orders that the pair’s acquittals be quashed and they be retried.