CONVICTED DRUG dealer John Gilligan and members of his family have argued before the Supreme Court that they are entitled to a fresh hearing before the High Court into whether their assets constitute the proceeds of crime.
The Gilligans, in an appeal to the Supreme Court, argued the original High Court orders declaring properties owned by them to be funded by crime were not final and did not entitle the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab) to apply to have those properties forfeited to the State.
If the Supreme Court rejects the appeal, Cab will be entitled to proceed to sell the properties.
The Gilligans claim they were never afforded a proper hearing when the proceeds of crime applications were first made in December 1996 and subsequently in July 1997. They want the Supreme Court to order that a new hearing should take place at which witnesses could be called and other information could be presented.
The affected properties include Jessbrook House, where Geraldine Gilligan lives, and its attached equestrian centre at Enfield in Co Meath; the former Gilligan family home in Corduff Avenue, Blanchardstown; and two houses in Lucan which were bought by John Gilligan for his son Darren and daughter Tracey.
After the High Court decided the properties represented the proceeds of crime, a freezing order was placed on them and Cab's legal officer, Frank Cassidy, was appointed receiver over them. He has since made arrangements for insuring and renting out a number of the properties with the consent of the High Court.
Cab has also put in place a caretaker agreement which Geraldine Gilligan, signed as a condition of her remaining in the house attached to the Jessbrook.
The Supreme Court appeal opened yesterday with submissions from lawyers for Geraldine, Tracey and Darren Gilligan. John Gilligan, who was in court amid tight security and is representing himself, will address the court today.
Opening the case for Mrs Gilligan, Roderick O'Hanlon SC said the main thrust of her appeal was aimed at securing a full and "substantial hearing" into the finding that her property represents the proceeds of crime.
There was no allegation Mrs Gilligan was involved in crime and it was her case that she did not know that the property involved was the proceeds of crime, counsel said.
Her husband, from whom she is now legally separated, had gone to considerable lengths to disguise how the property involved was purchased, counsel said.