A lawyer for convicted drugs dealer John Gilligan has claimed at the Special Criminal Court that he is entitled to the protection of a jury in the attempt by the State to confiscate his assets.
Mr Michael O'Higgins SC also submitted yesterday that if the attempt to confiscate the assets was a civil procedure then the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the application.
The State is seeking to confiscate £14.2 million which it alleges were Gilligan's profits from importing 20,000 kg of cannabis resin into the State over a period of two years.
The court has heard that the State wants the High Court to appoint a receiver to realise Gilligan's assets which allegedly include an equestrian centre at Jessbrook, two houses in Lucan, a house at Blanchardstown, six vehicles, 16 bank accounts and more than £5 million he had staked in bets.
Gilligan is serving a 28-year prison sentence imposed by the Special Criminal Court on March 15th last for importing cannabis resin.
Gilligan (49), with addresses at Corduff Avenue, Blanchardstown, Dublin, and Jessbrook Equestrian Centre, Mucklon, Enfield, Co Kildare, was convicted on March 15th last of 11 offences alleging that he unlawfully imported cannabis resin into the State on various dates between July 1st, 1994, and October 6th, 1996; that he unlawfully possessed cannabis resin for sale or supply on the same dates; that on or about October 3rd, 1996, at Greenmount Industrial Estate, Harold's Cross, Dublin, he had cannabis resin for sale or supply.
He was cleared of the murder of the journalist Veronica Guerin on June 26th, 1996.
In his application yesterday , Mr O'Higgins submitted that the court had to decide what form the determination would take on whether Gilligan had benefited from drugs trafficking, under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1994. He said there were three possibilities. The first was that the trial of the issue of whether Gilligan had benefited from drug trafficking was part of his trial which began last year.
The second was that it was a fresh criminal trial and in that case, Gilligan was entitled to all the benefits of a criminal trial.
The third was that it was a civil form of forfeiture.
He submitted that the inquiry could not be part of Gilligan's original trial because that trial was over and he had been convicted, although the proceedings might not be concluded.
He said the suggestion that it had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Gilligan was engaged in drug trafficking over a 21/2 year period was not supported and was "an utter fallacy". The court was being asked to inquire into matters that were not the same as the indictment, and the remit of the Section 4 application was much wider than the trial, he added.
Mr O'Higgins submitted that if the trial of the issue was criminal in nature then Gilligan was entitled to the protection of trial by jury.
He said that if the trial of the issue was a civil system of forfeiture then the court had no jurisdiction.
Mr Eamonn Leahy SC, prosecuting, submitted that the application was " a proceeding" with a self-contained statutory code.
He said it was a procedure presumed to be constitutional and the court had already ruled that it had jurisdiction to deal with it.
Mr Justice O' Donovan, presiding, said the court would reserve its judgment and the case would be mentioned again on July 18th.