Drug dealer’s daughter fails in bid to appeal finding over €100k home renovations

Stacey Calvert is the daughter of Dermot Calvert, who the Criminal Assets Bureau has described, as a career criminal

In January 2025, Dermot Calvert, along with his partner Martina Harty and Stacey, were found by the High Court to have individually or together controlled proceeds of crime funds used to renovate a house at Singland Crescent, Garryowen, Co Limerick. File picture

A drug dealer's daughter has failed in an attempt to appeal a High Court finding that €100,000 in renovations to her Limerick home was funded with the proceeds of crime.

Stacey Calvert is the daughter of Dermot Calvert, who the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) has described, as a career criminal. He has 91 convictions, mostly for road traffic offences but four of which relate to the sale and supply of drugs.

In January 2025, Mr Calvert, along with his partner Martina Harty and Stacey, were found by the High Court to have individually or together controlled proceeds of crime funds used to renovate a house at Singland Crescent, Garryowen, Co Limerick, and for a former shop premises in Garryowen, a VW Passat car, and cash seized from the house.

The court heard Stacey contributed €14,000 towards Singland Crescent, where she lives with her two children who have complex medical needs. 

The house was bought for €17,250 in 2014 and some €100,000 was later spent on renovating it which the High Court said came from the crime proceeds of her father.

Mr Calvert, who is in his 50s and is a father of 15 from his first marriage, lived in a 'granny flat' attached to the house along with Ms Harty. Singland Crescent was estimated in 2024/25 to be worth €170,000.

Under proceeds-of-crime legislation, the house can eventually be sold by CAB following a number of stages in the legal process, including a finding that it was funded or part-funded from crime proceeds.

In its decision last year, the High Court permitted Stacey and her children, because of the special circumstances of the case, to continue to live rent free at Singland Crescent for seven years.

This was in recognition of the fact that she had contributed €14,000 of her own money to the purchase of the house and that when it is sold, she would be entitled to a 20% equitable lien on the proceeds, the court said.

Mr Calvert and Ms Harty brought an appeal against the High Court proceeds-of-crime finding. In July 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and expressly upheld the High Court finding.

Stacey, who is in her 30s, had not brought her own appeal because the appeal lodged by her father and Ms Harty initially related to all of the seized property. 

However, the couple ultimately dropped the challenge in relation to Singland Crescent.

Stacey then wanted to appeal the decision in relation to her home. However, she had missed the deadline, or was "out of time", for doing so and needed to apply to the appeal court for an extension of time to do so.

She contended that her appeal was materially different to and relates to different property than that the subject of the previous appeal.

In a judgment, published on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal refused to grant her an extension of time.

Ms Justice Nuala Butler, on behalf of the three-judge appeal court, said, among other things, she had not provided any credible or coherent explanation for her delay of over a year in seeking to bring the appeal. 

She had also not advanced any arguable grounds of appeal.

In all the circumstances of this case, the judge was satisfied that this was not an appropriate case to exercise the court’s jurisdiction in favour of the grant of an extension of time.