Supreme Court reserves judgment on Gilligan challenge

The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in a case involving convicted drug dealer John Gilligan and his family over the freezing of some of their assets on grounds they were acquired with the proceeds of crime.

The Gilligans claim they did not receive a fair hearing when John Gilligan’s assets were frozen by the State in 1996 and that subsequent rulings based on that decision, including that the assets were forfeit to the State, are flawed or invalid.

The property includes an equestrian centre in Enfield, Co Meath, which Gilligan bought and developed before he spent 17 years in prison for drug trafficking. Other property owned by his former wife Geraldine, daughter Tracy and son Darren, was also found to be the proceeds of crime.

These included two houses in Lucan, Dublin, one belonging to Tracy, and another house in Blanchardstown, Dublin, belonging to Darren. The Gilligans claimed the properties were bought from legitimate earnings.

Ben Ó'Floinn BL, for the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB), rejected claims the Gilligans did not get a proper hearing. The 1996 freezing orders, confirmed in a High Court decision in July 1997, were obtained in accordance with legal requirements, he said.

The Gilligans resiled from the opportunity to challenge those orders because they took the view they would await the next stage provided for under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, an application by CAB to forfeit the property to the State, Mr Ó’Floinn said.

Michael Bromley Martin QC, for the Gilligans, disagreed with this characterisation about their approach to the freezing orders. They were assured by the authorities the orders were of a temporary nature, he said. Counsel also said the family were not legally represented at any stage leading up to the final freezing orders.

This was because John Gilligan applied for an order under Section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act to allow a charge be placed on the property or to have funds released so he could fund legal aid. That application was strongly resisted by CAB and while the High Court granted an order subject to certain conditions, the order was quashed on appeal, counsel said.

By that time, July 1997, all the freezing orders had been made, counsel said.

Paul Garlick QC, presenting the Gilligans’ case in relation to alleged breaches of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Act 2003, said they did not receive a fair determination of the proceeds of crime case.

Asked by Mr Justice John MacMenamin was there anything counsel considered should be remitted to the High Court for rehearing, Mr Garlick said there may be abuse of process considerations.

There would also be considerations under the right to family life provisions of the ECHR (Article 8) particularly in relation to Geraldine and Tracy who still live in two of the properties, counsel said.

In reply, Mr Ó’Floinn, for CAB, said the appellants had received a fair trial and had had every opportunity to make the arguments they were now making throughout several hearings that occurred over the years.