Courts seize €150,000 assets from armed robber
A convicted armed robber today had over £100,000 (€144,100) assets seized by the UK's Assets Recovery Agency after the first court case of its kind in Northern Ireland.
The action was taken after the robber refused to cut a deal with the agency - which would have allowed him to keep a small amount of his criminal assets – and decided to fight a winner-take-all case in the courts.
The Northern Ireland High Court granted a Civil Recovery Order on assets believed to be worth around £110,000 (€158,500) after a fully contested case.
The ARA took civil recovery proceedings against a house and bank accounts belonging to the convicted man who, for legal reasons, cannot be named.
The agency said he had served a prison sentence for conspiracy to commit armed robbery and had a substantial criminal record including convictions for a number of offences involving dishonesty.
Early in the civil proceedings the respondent argued the case against him should be classed as a criminal action rather than a civil action. It was a move which, if successful, would have given him much greater protection under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The challenge was rejected in both the Northern Ireland High Court and Court of Appeal and refused when it went to the House of Lords.
In his judgement today Mr Justice Coghlin said: “I am quite satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has for some time pursued a criminal lifestyle involving dishonest and acquisitive conduct with a willingness to resort to violence if necessary.
“The respondent has made no realistic or plausible attempt to explain the sources of the sums which the agency seeks to recover.”
The High Court appointed Alan McQuillan, deputy director of the ARA, as trustee to take possession of the recovered property and liquidate it.
Mr McQuillan said it was the first case in the North to go all the way through the legal process to a fully contested hearing and he was delighted at the result.
There were a number of cases awaiting trial and he said he hoped they would start to be seen flowing through the system.
Mr McQuillan said there was also an important lesson in the case which other respondents might care to take note of.
“At an early stage of these proceedings we offered to settle with the respondent because we considered it was in the public interest to do so.
“If he had taken a realistic view of the evidence against him, and given up most of his criminal proceeds, he could have received a small ‘discount’ in return for not having wasted public money in a contested trial.
“He refused all reasonable offers of settlement and, following today’s judgment, will now be left with nothing.”
