Dublin Jimmy’s brother loses appeal over search on business premises

A brother of deceased gangster, Cyril "Dublin Jimmy" McGuinness, has lost an appeal against a High Court decision dismissing an action in which he claimed his business premises were unlawfully searched by gardai. Truck dealer Fran McGuinness (62), originally from Pinnock Hill, Swords, Co Dublin, with an address on the Dublin Road, Newry, Co Down, claimed he was the victim of garda harassment over several years simply because of his brother. Advertisement

Cyril was suspected of a number of attacks on former Quinn business premises following the collapse of the Quinn empire, including masterminding the abduction of Kevin Lunney. Cyril died of a cardiac arrest shortly after he collapsed during a police search of his Derbyshire, England, home in 2019. Fran McGuinness sued the Garda Commissioner and the State over a search of his truck business premises next door to the former family home at Pinnock Hill in Swords on August 23rd, 2014.

Among his claims were that the gardai wrongly associated him with the Quinn attacks and that information used to swear the warrant for the search was untrue. Advertisement He also claimed gardai caused unnecessary damage to two gates to the premises by using an acetylene torch and that they seized important documents for his UK truck trading companies.

The defendants denied the claims, saying the search was lawful. Gardai carried out the search of the Pinnock Hill yard after it was established that a jeep used in one of the Quinn attacks had been seen in the yard at a specific time and date, the court heard. Last May, the High Court dismissed his case.

Advertisement He appealed on 16 grounds claiming the High Court judge erred in law and in fact. The Garda Commissioner and the State opposed the appeal.

They took issue with the grounds of appeal, including that they do not identify any errors of law or fact. Mr Justice Senan Allen, in a judgment on behalf of the three-judge Court of Appeal (CoA), dismissed the appeal. He said, among other things, that Mr.

McGuinness was indignant that his premises had been searched. In his correspondence, his affidavit, and in the statement of claim, he did not accept that the search had been conducted on foot of a warrant "but he never asserted or pleaded that his premises had been searched without a warrant," the judge said. There was also no suggestion that a copy of the warrant provided to him, and produced in court by him, was not a copy of an original warrant, he said.

There was also evidence from a detective sergeant who applied for the warrant and this was not challenged, he said.

He dismissed the appeal on all grounds.