Why Gilligan could in fact be innocent

What is it with The Irish Times and its liberal agenda? Last Friday it deplored the failure of the Special Criminal Court to convict John Gilligan for the murder of Veronica Guerin on the basis of evidence that, palpably, was inadequate. The judges could hardly have decided other than they did on the murder charge but they should have decided other than they did on another crucial aspect of the case.

The only evidence offered to the court on the murder charge was the evidence of the supergrass, Russell Warren. Warren's evidence was, first, that he had been asked by Gilligan to hold on to a motorcycle he [Warren] had stolen because Gilligan might need it. Then, that he had been asked by Gilligan to go to Naas courthouse on the day of the murder, June 26th, 1996, where Veronica Guerin was to be a defendant on a motoring charge.

Warren also stated he went to Naas where he saw Veronica Guerin's car, that he advised Gilligan and Brian Meehan [who has already been convicted of the murder] by telephone of the progress of Veronica Guerin's car back to Dublin, that he saw the pillion passenger shoot Veronica Guerin several times, that he telephoned Gilligan to tell him what happened and that Gilligan inquired if she was dead. He also said the motorcycle used in the murder was the one he had stolen.

The first problem with this evidence was that although Warren had made a statement to gardai about his movements around the time of the murder, and supplemented that account on several occasions, it was not until almost a year later that he said he had witnessed the murder. Furthermore, in not one of the many statements he made to gardai did he say it was Gilligan who asked him to go to Naas.

The next problem with his evidence was that his account of the circumstances of the shooting differed from the accounts of several other witnesses, giving rise to a suspicion that either he had not been at the scene or that he had been directly implicated. His description of the helmet worn by the driver of the motorcycle differed from the descriptions of other witnesses. He claimed after he had seen the shooting he drove his van on to the hard shoulder of the Naas dual carriageway and down a road to the left. Other witnesses gave evidence which suggested it would have been impossible for him to have done so because the slow lane was congested.

Evidence was given of a call from the mobile phone of Warren to Gilligan's mobile phone three minutes after the shooting. This did offer corroboration of Warren's claim that he phoned Gilligan immediately after the shooting. However, the record of telephone contacts between Warren and Gilligan suggests Warren was not telling the truth when he claimed that immediately after Veronica Guerin left the courthouse in Naas, he had telephoned Gilligan.

There is a record of a phone call from Gilligan's phone to Warren's at the time Veronica Guerin left the courthouse but the judges considered that evidence and further evidence about phone contacts between Warren and Brian Meehan as too weak to corroborate Warren's overall evidence. This was especially so given that he contradicted himself repeatedly during this testimony and also contradicted evidence he gave in the Brian Meehan trial. So how could the court have convicted Gilligan of the murder? What is remarkable is that the court found he was leader of what was known as the Greenmount Gang, the gang involved in the importation and sale of cannabis. It was largely because of that finding, as well as the ludicrous proposition that cannabis causes substantial harm, that the court sentenced Gilligan to 28 years imprisonment on the drugs charges.

There is persuasive evidence that Gilligan was engaged in the importation and sale of cannabis and that he was probably a member of the Greenmount Gang. But the only evidence that he was leader of the gang came from Russell Warren and since he was so thoroughly discredited as a witness, it is difficult to see how his evidence could be relied upon. It may be that John Gilligan is not just legally innocent of the murder of Veronica Guerin but actually innocent as well. In the Paul Ward case [Ward was also convicted of involvement in the murder] the Special Criminal Court found that the motivation for the murder was to prevent Veronica Guerin giving evidence against John Gilligan on an assault charge. The court in the recent case suggested it concurred with that view. But prior to the murder, John Gilligan had been prepared to answer to the assault charge. Gilligan had turned up for the hearing, four weeks before the murder, as had Veronica Guerin. The case was adjourned, apparently because the judge disbarred himself. If Gilligan had been willing to take the consequences in late May, why would he have been so frantic to avoid those consequences a few weeks later to the extent of arranging for Veronica Guerin's murder?

As in the Paul Ward case, serious questions arise in this case about the gardai's conduct. I shall return to these in future columns.

I am deferring a response to John Bruton's reply to my column of last week on Fine Gael's finances. This is to enable him to respond to 28 questions I have sent him and to examine documents I have sent him.

vbrowne@irish-times.ie