An attempt by the State to confiscate €17 million from convicted drug-dealer John Gilligan as alleged profits from his drug operations has come before the Supreme Court.
There was tight security at the court yesterday as it began hearing an appeal by the State against a High Court decision that the non-jury Special Criminal Court (SCC) had no jurisdiction to make an order in 2002 for confiscation of €17 million of Gilligan's assets. 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.
Gilligan was in court for the appeal hearing which opened yesterday. He is serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted by the SCC in 2001 of possessing and importing some 20,000kg of cannabis resin into Ireland over a two-year period.
An appeal by him on points of law arising from his conviction was heard by the Supreme Court last July. Judgment was reserved and has yet to be delivered.
After Gilligan was sentenced, the SCC ruled it had power to conduct an inquiry to determine whether he had benefited from drug trafficking. The court concluded he had so benefited and, in March 2002, made a confiscation order requiring him to pay some €17 million to the State within a 12-month period.
Lawyers for Gilligan challenged the SCC's order before the High Court. In November 2002, Mr Justice Brian McCracken held the SCC had no jurisdiction under Section 4 of the 1994 Act to make such an order.
Because the SCC was a non-jury court, its jurisdiction had to be strictly construed, the judge said. He rejected arguments by the State that the provisions under Section 4 of the 1994 Act relating to holding an inquiry into whether a person had profited from drugs offences was not a further ancillary power given to the SCC.
In submissions for the State yesterday, Donal O'Donnell SC, with Edward Comyn SC, rejected arguments on behalf of Gilligan that the process which led to the making of the confiscation order was a self-standing trial of a criminal offence and therefore unconstitutional.
The State contended this was not a self-standing criminal procedure.
The case is expected to conclude today.
