An attempt by convicted drugs criminal John Gilligan to have his prison sentence further reduced was dismissed by the Supreme Court yesterday.
Gilligan is serving a 20-year term for having £1 million (punts) worth of cannabis for sale or supply over a two-year period.
One of the Supreme Court judges, Mr Justice Nial Fennelly, ruled in a minority judgment yesterday that the Supreme Court did not even have jurisdiction to hear the application by Gilligan aimed at further reducing his sentence in circumstances where the Court of Criminal Appeal had already heard Gilligan's appeal against a 28-year sentence and had reduced that sentence to 20 years.
While the other four judges found the Supreme Court could hear the application, Ms Justice Susan Denham, delivering the court's judgment, went on to dismiss it, holding there were no grounds to intervene in the appeal court's decision.
Gilligan was in court for the decision.
He was initially jailed for 28 years by the Special Criminal Court in 2001. After a lengthy trial which began in late 2000, the Special Criminal Court had cleared Gilligan in 2001 of the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin in June 1996 and also acquitted him of firearms charges.
Gilligan's counsel James Lewis QC had argued that the 20-year sentence was "manifestly excessive", and that a sentence of 12 years should have been imposed for the drugs offences.
Delivering the majority court decision, Ms Justice Denham said that, as the crimes in this case were at the top end of the range, the sentences should also be at the top end of the scale.
An important factor was that Gilligan was the leader of the gang involved. This immediately placed him in a more serious position for sentencing, and distinguished him from other members of the gang.
A key factor in the Court of Criminal Appeal decision to reduce the 28-year sentence to 20 years was the appeal court's overturning of findings of the trial court as to the leadership status of Gilligan. However, the Supreme Court in November 2003 reversed that appeal court's finding and upheld the findings of the Special Criminal Court regarding the leadership status of Gilligan. Consequently, the leadership factor remained an aggravating factor.
There was no evidence of any mitigating factor, the judge added. No remorse was indicated at the court of trial or later. While the applicant was not in his youth, neither was he an old man and his age was not a mitigating factor.
The relevant and aggravating factors included that Gilligan was the prime mover in the drugs gang, it was a large commercial operation and Gilligan made significant profits. It was not a case where Gilligan was a drug addict seeking to feed a habit. He had previous convictions and there were no signs of remorse.
The 28-year sentence by the Special Criminal Court was at the high end of the appropriate sentence but was not so high as to be an error in principle.
"These were serious offences involving a significant amount of illegal drugs, in a pattern where the applicant was not in the business of possession for the sale or supply of illegal drugs to feed a habit, but rather for commercial gain and he gained significantly."
The maximum sentence for such a crime would be life imprisonment.
The appeal court had applied the appropriate principles and considered all the circumstances in imposing the 20-year sentence, and the Supreme Court would not alter it.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Fennelly said the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear the appeal was regulated by statute and there was no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against sentence.