The powers of the Special Criminal Court are strictly curbed by legislation, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent
The remit of the Special Criminal Court runs to criminal trials, and only criminal trials, the Supreme Court found yesterday. It rejected the contention made by the State that the confiscation of the assets of crime was closely enough related to the crimes committed to fall within the jurisdiction of the court that had tried the offences.
In her Supreme Court judgment Ms Justice Denham pointed out that the power of confiscation is "a new type of jurisdiction" established under the 1994 Criminal Justice Act setting up the Cab. The proceedings involved, she pointed out, are not a trial.
John Gilligan was convicted by the Special Criminal Court of drug-trafficking, for which he is serving a 20-year sentence. In addition the State brought an application to the same court to have his profits from the drug-dealing calculated, and the sum arrived at of €17.6 million confiscated.
He challenged the jurisdiction of this court to make such a ruling, and the High Court found in his favour. Ms Justice Denham agreed. She said that the outstanding feature of the Special Criminal Court is the denial of the right to trial by jury, which is otherwise a constitutional right.
"The Constitution states clearly that the Special Criminal courts are 'for the trial of offences'," she said. "Thus it is limited to the trial of offences."
While it has some ancillary powers, these do not include any jurisdiction under the legislation that set up the Cab. This does not mean that John Gilligan's assets are now safe from the State.
The powers available under the 1994 legislation relating to seizure are extensive, and have been tested in the courts and found to be constitutional.
It is open to the State to seek the seizure of the assets in other courts.