Judge dismisses appeal by `evasive' man to have his dole money restored

The evidence of a man whose dole money was cut off by direction of the Criminal Assets Bureau was described by a judge yesterday…

The evidence of a man whose dole money was cut off by direction of the Criminal Assets Bureau was described by a judge yesterday as "evasive, at times incredible and at other times plainly dishonest".

Judge Elizabeth Dunne, dismissing an appeal by Mr Paul Gantley (23), Sundrive Road, Crumlin, Dublin, to have his unemployment assistance restored to him, said he had failed to provide information which would have enabled an assessment of his means to be carried out.

Mr Gantley had told the court he knew nothing about parental banking transactions in excess of £200,000, properties owned by his parents, including a holiday villa in Spain, or about £94,000 cash found in a biscuit tin in his parents' home. Judge Dunne ordered that he pay back all unemployment assistance he had received since he started claiming in 1993 at the age of 18. She also made an order for costs against him.

Following the judgment, Mr Patrick Hunt, counsel for Mr Gantley, withdrew similar appeals made by his brother, James jnr, and his sister, Sharon. Judge Dunne affirmed CAB decisions to cut off their dole but was not asked to make an order for costs against them.

READ MORE

Judge Dunne said the CAB deciding officer had evidence to the effect that Mr James Gantley snr and his wife, Ms Christine Gantley, had substantial income during 1992-97, and reference had been made in evidence to a number of property and financial transactions. She said the explanation offered had not adequately explained these transactions and the deciding officer had been satisfied that Mr Paul Gantley had enjoyed benefit and board and lodging in his parents' home.

Judge Dunne said it was up to an applicant for unemployment benefit to satisfy the deciding officer as to his entitlement to assistance. The issue in the case was the nature and extent of the means of Mr Gantley's parents and the nature and extent of his enjoyment of those means.

In evidence Mr Gantley said he had no means and over the years had received approximately £1,000 from his mother on special occasions such as birthdays.