A PROSECUTION statement detailing Mr John Gilligan's involvement in drug trafficking and money laundering could mean a further three charges are brought against him when he faces trial in Britain in September under drug trafficking legislation.
Announcing the prosecution's intention to seek a voluntary bill in the High Court to reintroduce two charges which had been quashed by a judicial review last week, Mr Nigel Peters QC told a remand hearing at Woolwich Crown Court yesterday he would "plug the hole" and produce evidence linking Mr Gilligan with drug trafficking.
On Friday a judicial review quashed charges against Mr Gilligan under Section 49 (1) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 relating to his proceeds of drug trafficking on the basis that the evidence against him was "hearsay" and could not be admitted into court. He remains charged under Section 50 (1) of the same Act, which concerns another person's proceeds of drug trafficking.
However, explaining the decision to reintroduce the charges, Mr Peters said the statement of a new witness, Mr Charles Bowden, contained direct details about his involvement in "drug trafficking and money laundering".
Mr Gilligan, who was arrested at Heathrow Airport on October 6th, 1996, with £330,000 concealed in his suitcase, may also be charged under Section 19 of the Criminal Justice International Cooperation Act, which relates to the movement of drugs from one State to another passing through British seas.
Up to 50 "important" Irish witnesses who had been expected to give evidence against Mr Gilligan in Dublin this summer will now not appear during his trial. Only "important" witnesses will travel to Britain from Dublin. "It is an English trial, and an English jury should see them," said Mr Peters.
In referring to the "delays" caused by the Garda in releasing statements by Mr Bowden and two other men, Mr John Dunne and Mr Dermot Cambridge, who claim they helped Mr Gilligan with importing drugs, Judge Hubert Dunn asked: "What powers do I have to make orders binding the Irish authorities? I am not sure that I have the power to direct Irish Customs to speed up their work."
During lengthy argument, Mr Gilligan's barrister, Ms Clare Montgomery, complained that the date of the trial "is in jeopardy through no fault of its own" because the prosecution had failed to disclose the statements three months after committal hearings had begun. "Some of this evidence is so central to the trial," she said, "and in the interests of a fair and speedy trial the defence should not be shut out."
Mr Justice Dunn conceded that although he did not believe he could make an order forcing gardai to produce the statements, he would direct Mr Peters to produce the unedited statements of Mr Bowden and the other men in 28 days.
However, their evidence, although it has not been disclosed, might raise the issue of a Public Interest Immunity certificate (PII), said Ms Montgomery. A PII can be issued before or during a trial, she argued, if it can be shown that the disclosure of certain evidence is damaging to the public interest. "What public interest is in play here? The point of principle is whether disclosure relates to Ireland as well and about what appears in the Irish press," Ms Montgomery said.
The issue "is not unimportant," said the judge, setting aside July 11th to consider the PII, "and the implications of disclosure in Ireland". Mr Gilligan was remanded in custody until June 27th.