State fails to seize €17m of Gilligan's assets

A bid by the State to confiscate some €17 million in assets from convicted drug dealer John Gilligan and members of his family was rejected by the Supreme Court yesterday. The five-judge court ruled the non-jury Special Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to make such a confiscation order under the Criminal Justice Act, 1994.

However, two sets of proceedings are continuing, under the Tax Acts and the Proceeds of Crime Act, in which the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab) is seeking to seize assets belonging to Gilligan.

The Supreme Court yesterday delivered its reserved judgment on an appeal by the State against a High Court decision that the SCC had no jurisdiction to make the confiscation order under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. Gilligan was not in court for the decision.

The confiscation order was made after Gilligan was jailed for 28 years for possessing and importing some 20,000kg of cannabis resin into Ireland over a two-year period. The jail term was later reduced to 20 years.

The State's appeal had centred on interpretation of Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 (the 1994 Act), which provides for the making of confiscation orders.

The High Court found the SCC 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 SCC may exist.

The State disputed that finding and rejected arguments on behalf of Gilligan that the inquiry by the SCC was a self-standing criminal procedure outside the jurisdiction of the SCC.

Ms Justice Susan Denham, delivering the Supreme Court's judgment, said the High Court had found the power to make a determination and a confiscation order following conviction was not sufficiently ancillary to the trial of offences to come within the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court.

Ms Justice Denham said she was satisfied the High Court judge was correct in law. She said the Special Criminal Court is a unique and special court envisaged under the Constitution. A significant jurisdiction such as bail should be and has been expressly provided for by legislation, and a "significant ancillary jurisdiction" such as is created by Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act should be expressly stated to apply to the Special Criminal Court if it is so intended.

Ms Justice Denham said she was satisfied the Special Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction to make orders pursuant of Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. Many of Gilligan's assets remain frozen under an order secured by the Cab under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996.