CONVICTED DRUG dealer John Gilligan and members of his family have failed in their Supreme Court challenge to previous court findings that the family’s properties were the proceeds of crime.
Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan said that in relation to an appeal against the way in which proceedings had been taken over disposal of the properties, he could not see “the slightest injustice” being caused by the method used. He dismissed an appeal by the Gilligans against the High Court’s refusal to throw out the use of a special summons to the High Court for the purpose of seeking disposal of the properties.
However, the Supreme Court said it was still open to the Gilligans to apply to discharge a 1997 freezing order on the properties on the basis that an injustice may have been caused to them.
In their Supreme Court appeal, the Gilligans argued no definitive finding had been made by the courts when the proceeds of crime order was made in 1997 and they said they were entitled to a full hearing into the matter.
They sought to challenge orders made against them after the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab) first applied to the High Court in 1996 to freeze their assets, including orders appointing a receiver to sell the properties on behalf of the State.
The Supreme Court appeal, heard over two days last October by a five-judge court, was in relation to a number of challenges to the original freezing order, appointment of a receiver and disposal of the properties.
The properties include Jessbrook House in Enfield, Co Meath, where Ms Geraldine Gilligan lives, an equestrian centre attached to it, the former family home in Blanchardstown and two houses in Lucan which were bought by Mr Gilligan for his son Darren and daughter Tracey. Yesterday Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan, delivering the Supreme Court judgment, dismissed appeals in relation to challenges brought after the original freezing order was made in July 1997 by Mr Justice Michael Moriarty.
It was open to the Gilligans to resist the freezing order on grounds provided for in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 that an injustice had been caused to them, the judge said.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said the Gilligans’ lawyers did not need the Supreme Court to tell them an application could have been brought against the freezing order on injustice grounds.
The Gilligans’ claim that they had not resisted the original freezing order because they did not have the means to pay lawyers was not a reason for the High Court not to make the freezing orders.
In his view, the substantive matters which the Gilligans want dealt with could still be litigated. While stressing he was making that point as a by-the-way observation (obiter dicta), the judge said he was firmly of the view that a more appropriate remedy than challenging the receivership and disposal proceedings by the Cab would be to challenge the original freezing order.
That was a matter for the Gilligans’ legal advisers, the judge said.
The issue of costs was reserved.