Ruling reserved on order to seize Gilligan's assets

The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on a challenge by the State to a ruling that the Special Criminal Court was not entitled to make an order for the confiscation of some €17 million from convicted drug dealer John Gilligan. This money is allegedly profits from his drug activities.

The five judges of the Supreme Court presided over by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, heard closing arguments for the State in the two-day appeal yesterday after which they reserved their decision.

Gilligan personally attended both days of the appeal hearing which attracted a high security presence.

The appeal was against a High Court finding that the non-jury Special Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to make an order in 2002 for the confiscation of some €17 million from Gilligan, which figure the court assessed as profits from drug trafficking.

The Special Criminal Court made the confiscation order after it had jailed Gilligan for 28 years for possessing and importing some 20,000kg of cannabis resin into Ireland over a two-year period.

The 28-year term was reduced on appeal to 20 years.

A separate appeal by Gilligan on points of law arising from his conviction was heard by the Supreme Court last July and it reserved judgment.

That judgment has yet to be delivered.

Many of Gilligan's assets remain frozen under an order secured some years ago by the Criminal Assets Bureau in separate proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996.

The appeal centres on interpretation of section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, which provides for the making of confiscation orders.

The High Court found the Special Criminal Court had no jurisdiction under that provision to make the confiscation order. Mr Justice Brian McCracken ruled that the power to make a confiscation order was not a power relating to the trial of offences which latter power, he found, was the only purpose under the Constitution for which the Special Criminal Court may exist.

The State disputes that finding and has opposed arguments on behalf of Gilligan that the inquiry by the Special Criminal Court was a self-standing criminal procedure outside its jurisdiction.

The only issue the Special Criminal Court had to decide before beginning its inquiry into whether Gilligan had profited from drug trafficking was whether it was "a court" as provided for in the 1994 Act, senior counsel Donal O'Donnell, for the State, submitted yesterday.

The Special Criminal Court had decided it was "a court" for the purposes of the 1994 Act and that it was "a logical absurdity" to conclude otherwise.