Gilligan lawyers says key evidence paid for

A Court of Criminal Appeal judge has said lawyers for John Gilligan are effectively claiming that key witnesses were bribed to give evidence against him during his trial on drug charges.

Mr Justice McCracken made the remark yesterday after Mr John Rogers SC, for Gilligan, said key witnesses Charles Bowden and Russell Warren, from 1996 up to Gilligan's trial in December 2000, were "supergrasses" who were being "paid, minded and secured by the State" and were constantly negotiating with the gardaí and Department of Justice seeking to better their position.

An assistant Garda commissioner, Mr Tony Hickey, had authorised payments for them, he said. These same witnesses had secured immunity from prosecution for the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin, cash, light sentences, improved prison conditions including several periods of temporary release and ultimately, their release from prison and new lives.

Yesterday was the third day of Gilligan's appeal against his conviction for importing cannabis resin and having the drug for sale or supply. He was jailed for 28 years in March 2001 following a 45-day trial before the non-jury Special Criminal Court.

The day after Bowden and Warren secured letters granting them immunity from prosecution for the murder of Ms Guerin, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Gilligan, Mr Rogers said.

However, in its judgment convicting Gilligan on drugs charges but clearing him of the murder of Ms Guerin, the Special Criminal Court failed to analyse the juxtaposition between such events, the payment of monies to Bowden and Warren and other significant developments, such as the making of important statements by both men and their agreeing to testify against Gilligan.

In "a denial of the obvious", the Special Criminal Court had found the benefits for Bowden, Warren and John Dunne, an alleged former associate of Gilligan, of testifying against him, were "perceived benefits" and "more imagined than real". Such a finding was clearly wrong.

Mr Rogers said this case in many ways was not about the witness-protection programme but rather about a series of events from October 1996 to Gilligan's trial. Never before was there a case where the State had established a system of paying witnesses.

Mr Justice McCracken said counsel was effectively saying Bowden was bribed and therefore should not have been heard. Mr Rogers said it was not just that, it was also that the court found it did not believe Bowden in many respects but had yet accepted some of his evidence.

Mr Rogers engaged in a detailed analysis of evidence given by Bowden and Warren to the Special Criminal Court in Gilligan's trial.

This indicated, he said, a relentless process of negotiation aimed at improving the position of both men and showed they believed any improvements in their position would be related to their performances in court. Both men were "in the maw of the State" up to Gilligan's trial.

The appeal continues today.