The Special Criminal Court acquitted John Gilligan of the murder of the journalist Veronica Guerin and of firearms charges, but convicted him on a number of drugs charges.
Delivering the court's verdict, Mr Justice Diarmuid O'Donovan, presiding, said that at all stages during a criminal trial an accused person has, at law, the presumption of innocence and remains at all times throughout an innocent person unless and until that presumption is displaced at the end of the trial by a finding based on evidence which is either reliable testimony, circumstantial evidence or a reasonable inference drawn from established facts that the person is, indeed, guilty as charged beyond any reasonable doubt.
"While this court has grave suspicions that John Gilligan was complicit in the murder of the late Veronica Guerin, the court has not been persuaded beyond all reasonable doubt by the evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution that this is so and, therefore, the court is required by law to acquit the accused on that charge."
The judge said at the beginning of the court's judgment: "While the accused is charged with Ms Guerin's murder, it is no part of the prosecution's case that he was either the gunman, or the cyclist of the motorcycle on which the gunman was travelling, or even that he was present at the scene of the crime.
"On the contrary, the prosecution believe that Mr Gilligan was in Holland at the material time. Nevertheless, the prosecution believe that it was the accused who determined that Ms Guerin was to die and that it was he who was principally responsible for planning the circumstances under which she was to meet her end.
"Furthermore, it was contended that the perpetrators of the crime were acting under the accused's control and command at the time Veronica Guerin was assassinated."
The judge said that if the court concluded that those who were directly responsible for the murder were acting under the accused man's command and control, then the court would be satisfied that the accused man was as guilty of the offence of murder "as if he himself had squeezed the trigger of the gun".
Mr Justice O'Donovan said that the evidence of three witnesses, John Dunne, Charles Bowden and Russell Warren, would largely determine the guilt or innocence of the accused man.
The court recognised that each of the witnesses was an accomplice of the accused man and it recognised the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. However, the court rejected defence submissions that the honesty of the witnesses was open to question. In the court's view, they had nothing to gain from giving perjured evidence.
Turning to the witness protection programme, the judge said: "It appears to the court that the capacity of the Garda Siochana to combat organised crime is ever increasingly dependent upon the co-operation of criminals, which in turn necessitates the existence of a witness protection programme.
"It would appear that this was the first occasion since the foundation of the State upon which a witness protection programme was put in place by the authorities, and as it is manifest that such a programme is essential for preserving the wellbeing of persons who have engaged in organised crime and are yet prepared to give evidence against their partners in crime, the court has no doubt but that the authorities were well entitled to operate such a programme, and not only to operate it, but to cloak its details in complete confidentiality, because if the public at large had access to those details, it is the view of the court that the whole purpose of the programme would be defeated."
The court criticised the gardai for returning money to Bowden and Warren, saying that this "could have created a perception in their minds that the payments were being made in consideration of their incriminating their partners in crime".
But the judge said that any perceived benefits to the witnesses from giving prosecution evidence was "more imagined than it is real".
The court was satisfied that the accused man was "the prime mover in the importation of cannabis resin into this country from early in 1994 until October 1996".
The court had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the association between Charles Bowden, Paul Ward, Brian Meehan, two other men and the accused man was such that it was reasonable for the prosecution to describe them as a gang.
The court said that the cannabis resin found at Greenmount and the drugs lists found there, as well as the evidence of Russell Warren, led to the inexorable conclusion that the accused man engaged in the sale and supply of cannabis resin.
Gilligan was the "largest beneficiary and was the supreme authority among the members of the gang".
Turning to the firearms charges, the court said that the charges stood or fell on the testimony of Charles Bowden. "The court is not persuaded that there is any evidence which is corroborative of the evidence of Charles Bowden with regard to the source of the guns and ammunition which were found in the Jewish cemetery on Oldcourt Road . . . The court is not satisfied that the prosecution has established a case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused in respect of the several offences of possession of arms and ammunition which have been preferred against him."
The judge said that the only evidence on which Gilligan might be convicted of murder was that of Russell Warren. However, it had been established not only that Warren was an accomplice of the accused man but also that his evidence was suspect and ought not to be relied upon except where it was corroborated by independent evidence.
"Each and every aspect of Mr Warren's evidence with regard to the events which he said occurred on the days preceding Veronica Guerin's murder, and with regard to the events which he maintained had occurred on the day itself, were challenged by the defence on the grounds that they were a tissue of lies, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say a figment of his deceitful imagination."
Apart from evidence regarding the theft of a motorcycle, there was "no corroboration whatsoever of Mr Warren's evidence with regard to Mr Gilligan's complicity in the death of the late Veronica Guerin".
The judge continued: "Not only is there no corroboration of any of Mr Warren's testimony, but a number of witnesses gave evidence which would appear to cast a doubt on what Mr Warren said."
The court said that none of the eye-witnesses gave a description of the motorcycle on which the assassins were travelling which corresponded with Warren's description.
The court also found that evidence of a phone call between a mobile phone habitually used by Gilligan and one habitually used by Warren three minutes after the murder did not establish "that Mr Gilligan had any hand, act or part in the killing", and other telephone records were not "sufficiently corroborative" of Warren's evidence in this respect.
The full text of the judgment in the Gilligan case is available on the Irish Times website at www.ireland.com