THE determination by the High Court that last year's Proceeds of Crime Act is constitutional is a significant legal success for the State. The Act is a major part of the last government's programme for tackling organised crime through the Criminal Assets Bureau, where gardai, Revenue and Social Welfare officials work together to deprive successful criminals of their wealth.
The judgment is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, as have other judgments on the legality of the new bureau's activities.
Pending yesterday's ruling, the bureau had concentrated on deploying older tax legislation to prove that criminals were hiding their earnings. The Proceeds of Crime Act is a stronger instrument, allowing the freezing of assets for seven years before disposal, and requiring the owner to prove the gains were not illgotten.
The case was taken by Mr John Gilligan, currently in custody in Britain on drugs related charges. He argued that he was only part owner of many of the properties the bureau wanted to seize - including the Jessbrook equestrian centre near Enfield, Co Meath - and that they were bought with gambling money and a £4 million loan from a foreign businessman.
It was a measure of the importance the State attached to the case that the court heard arguments not only from a senior officer from the Criminal Assets Bureau, but also from Mr Noel Conroy, a Deputy Garda Commissioner.
The bureau officer told the court, during the four day hearing last March, that a major criminal gang had invested millions of pounds in legitimate businesses such as pubs and apartment blocks in Dublin.
He said about 20 serious criminals were operating in the State, with about 100 lesser criminals backing them up. The bureau was investigating only people with previous criminal convictions.
Mr Conroy said the Act had resulted in many major criminals leaving the jurisdiction and trying to dispose of properties. He said the legislation was needed to boost public confidence in the judicial system and prevent ordinary people becoming "frustrated and disillusioned".
While she endorsed the State's arguments yesterday Mrs Justice McGuinness said she was concerned about two parts of the Act.
One might allow a person to reveal information which could be used to incriminate him or her in a later criminal prosecution, and the other concerned hearsay evidence. Both would have to be applied carefully by the courts, she said.