:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/HOME64MP3EMHCF2LZ3TM2DB5NQ.jpg)
The Criminal Asset Bureau (CAB) has argued before the High Court that gangland figure James ‘Mago’ Gately and his partner, Charlene Lam, should not be granted free legal aid to defend proceedings in which the bureau alleges their family home was bought with the proceeds of crime.
CAB opposes the application, claiming the couple can afford to pay for their own legal representation. It says they have gone on foreign trips, including cruises to the Caribbean and Southeast Asia, and spent more than €440,000 on their home.
In its proceedings against Mr Gately, who is alleged to be heavily involved with an organised crime group, and Ms Lam, CAB seeks orders in respect of their home in Coolock, Co Dublin, as well as various assets, including a Volkswagen Golf GTI car and a ladies Rolex watch, which were seized by the bureau in 2019.
The bureau claims the assets were acquired with the proceeds of crime and it is seeking various orders under section 3 of the 1996 Proceeds of Crime Act. The couple denies the claims and says the assets were acquired with legitimate funds.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/HDCI5UOLYNG4NFVQ7WOSMGOY3I.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/K6RBSCJHHLYJOULIULHM4Z7OZQ.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/X7ORVA6TCY4FGMDQGGCRCKVWV4.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/F7SQXAJ7RZFFFDZVVV7ILMQ6BE.jpg)
In a pretrial application on Wednesday, Mr Justice Alexander Owens said the couple had asked him to make orders granting free legal aid to defend the case.
The couple, represented by David Perry BL, claim they cannot afford to pay lawyers from their own funds to defend what counsel said were “complex” proceedings.
The court heard Mr Gately has not worked since 2015 due to a threat on his life and that Ms Lam is a self-employed beautician who pays the mortgage on the family home and general living expenses out of her own modest income. It is claimed that her business suffered during Covid-19 and for a time she was in receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment.
The court heard the house was purchased by Mr Gately, who is in his early 30s, for €125,000 in 2013. He claims he paid a deposit on the property out of his earnings, which he got from working in a hairdressing business and a shop.
The remainder of the monies used to pay for the house came from a mortgage he obtained from a bank.
The car seized was paid for out of their own funds, he said.
The court heard that Ms Lam also had an Audi A6 car which, it is claimed, was part-purchased with money from a family member, her own earnings, and National Lottery winnings.
Counsel said his clients dispute claims made in respect of the amount of money allegedly spent by them on their property.
The works were carried out for a much lower price by him and relatives, they claim.
It was also claimed that the Rolex watch, allegedly worth €4,400, was acquired for about €1,500 from a friend of Ms Lam’s family member.
Some of the trips taken by the couple had taken place some years ago and were not relevant to their applications for legal aid. It was accepted that they had gone on recent trips to Barcelona and Lisbon, but they submitted that the money they spent on those was small compared with the costs of paying lawyers to represent them in High Court proceedings.
CAB, represented by barrister David Dodd, said the couple’s lifestyle was such that their legal costs should not be paid for by the public.
Counsel submitted that to do so would undermine a scheme that was set up to ensure people at the lowest rung of society could obtain proper legal advice.
Mr Dodd said the couple had spent more than €440,000 renovating their Coolock home.
Counsel said that on a cruise-ship holiday around Asia taken a few years ago they had a cabin with a balcony. The year before they took a cruise around the Caribbean and they have more recently taken trips to Lisbon and Barcelona, the court heard.
Counsel added that the couple seemed to be able to change cars on a regular basis.
Mr Gately’s claim that he had not worked since 2015 was questionable, and he spent time in Northern Ireland since that year, said counsel.
The claim seems to contradict certain admissions he made in an interview with CAB officers, counsel added.
Mr Justice Owens reserved his judgment on the application. He said he hoped to give his decision when CAB matters next come before the court.