Gilligan loses appeal against drugs conviction

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by convicted drug dealer John Gilligan against his conviction.

The five-judge court delivered its 70-page judgment at 10.30am. The ruling, which was unanimous, upheld the use of testimony from witnesses in the Witness Protection Programme (WPP) in criminal cases.

Gilligan, who was not in court, was appealing his conviction by the non-jury Special Criminal Court in 2001 on charges of having cannabis resin for sale or supply.

Gilligan was convicted of possession of an estimated 20,000kg of cannabis resin over a two-year period and was jailed for 28 years, later reduced on appeal to 20 years. He is serving his sentence in Portlaoise Prison.

The court acquitted Gilligan of the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin in June 1996 and also acquitted him of firearms charges.

He was convicted in the drugs charges largely on the evidence of three former associates, Charles Bowden, John Dunne and Russell Warren.

The appeal came before the Supreme Court in July after the Court of Criminal Appeal certified two issues for determination arising from the appeal court's judgment rejecting Gilligan's appeal.

The issues related to the circumstances in which evidence from an accomplice who is on a WPP is ever inadmissible in a criminal trial and to the nature of the corroboration required from such witnesses.

Gilligan's legal team had argued that evidence given against him at trial should not have been admissible as it had been obtained from the three witnesses through a process of interview, inducement and concession. It was also contended that those men were encouraged to co-operate by being paid money.

Michael O'Higgins, SC for Gilligan, had argued that the case was handled in such a way that Bowden, Warren and Dunne, perceived their performance in court would affect whatever benefits they would receive from the WPP.

But in today's unanimous ruling, Miss Justice Susan Denham said the WPP was effectively a necessary evil.

"In an ideal world there would be no need for witnesses who were in a Witness Protection Programme," the ruling said.

"The development of a Witness Protection Programme is a reflection of a need arising in our times. It is a consequence of a society where there are gangs, drug trafficking violence and death, and very significant sums being made from criminal activity.

"Many cases, such as this, could not be brought unless there was evidence from an accomplice or a person in a Witness Protection Programme."

The ruling noted that by its very nature, the programme carries with it benefits for the witness and his or her family. These benefits should be a considered by the trial judge in any case and be "distinguished from corrupt or abusive activities, including bribery."

The ruling noted that a trial judge should warn the jury of the dangers of accepting witnesses' evidence unless if it is uncorroborated. Once this warning has been given, the Supreme Court said, it is open to the trial court to convict on the evidence of a protected witness, even if it is uncorroborated.

In Gilligan's case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was "quite clear that the trial court read and considered the law relating to a warning in such circumstances, and it was aware of the dangers of convicting on such evidence without corroboration."