Supreme Court to rule on Gilligan appeal

The Supreme Court will deliver its judgment today on a final attempt by convicted drug dealer John Gilligan to secure his freedom.

The five-judge court will hand down its judgment this morning on Gilligan's appeal against conviction by the non-jury Special Criminal Court in 2001 on charges of having cannabis resin for sale or supply.

The Special Criminal Court acquitted Gilligan of the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin in June 1996 and also acquitted him of firearms charges. Gilligan was convicted of possession of an estimated 20,000 kg of cannabis resin over a two-year period and was jailed for 28 years, later reduced on appeal to 20 years.

In the Supreme Court hearing last July, the court was asked to determine, as matters of exceptional public importance, two points of law referred to it by the Court of Criminal Appeal arising from that court's judgment last year rejecting Gilligan's appeal against his conviction.

The points relate to the circumstances under which evidence from witnesses involved in a witness-protection programme is inadmissible in a criminal trial and to the nature of corroborative evidence required from accomplice witnesses who have participated in a witness-protection programme.

On behalf of Gilligan, Michael O'Higgins SC and John Rogers SC argued that evidence given against him at trial had been obtained from three witnesses, Charles Bowden, John Dunne and Russell Warren, by a process of interview, inducement and concession.

It was contended that those men were encouraged to co-operate by being paid money.

Opposing the appeal, Peter Charleton SC, for the DPP, submitted that the entire case against Gilligan had been well corroborated.

The prosecution had proved that Gilligan had been involved in a drugs gang through circumstantial evidence and from the evidence of three accomplices.

There was evidence that he was the leader of the gang and the main wholesaler in the drugs operation, Mr Charleton said.

In separate proceedings, the Supreme Court has reserved judgment on a challenge by the State to a decision that the Special Criminal Court was not entitled to make an order in 2002 for the confiscation of some €17 million from Gilligan as alleged profits from his drug activities.

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

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.