John Gilligan, who was acquitted of the murder of Veronica Guerin, but jailed for 28 years on drugs offences, yesterday began his appeal against the sentence.
At the Court of Criminal Appeal his lawyers claimed that Gilligan was wrongly convicted on the basis of uncorroborated and inadmissible evidence.
It was claimed that evidence against Gilligan had been from "serial self-serving liars", "compromised witnesses" and "desperate men in desperate straits". These witnesses were described as people who would not have the backbone to resist any perceived offer of "cash for testimony".
Tight security surrounded Gilligan's appearance in court for the start of his appeal against his conviction by the non-jury Special Criminal Court on drug charges in March 2001.
He is serving a total of 28 years for offences of importatation of cannabis and having cannabis resin for sale and supply. He was acquitted on charges of murdering journalist Veronica Guerin and of firearms charges.
Opening the appeal, Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Gilligan, said the operation of the "unprecedented" witness protection programme in Gilligan's trial was a critical and pivotal point in the appeal.
Criminals who testified against Gilligan, including Charles Bowden and Russell Warren, "had their backs to the wall" and, under the witness protection programme were having secret and unrecorded meetings with police officers. These were men who were seeking immunity for themselves from prosecution and whom, it would have been impossible to find, would not have been affected by a perceived inducement to testify for cash. The manner of the arrangements between gardaí and both men indicated the men might have had such a perception.
Neither Bowden nor Warren could between them assemble "an ounce of remorse" following the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin in June 1996, counsel said. Their whole mode of existence was "me, me and me" and they had spent their entire time trying to improve their lot.
The murder of Ms Guerin was really the starting point in a series of events leading to John Gilligan's conviction, he added. All those involved, or suspected of involvement, "knew what was coming" and were "taking steps". The fact that Bowden, for instance, spun huge lies about the amount of money he had made and that the police did not properly investigate that, made one suspect the garda investigation accelerated in one direction and ignored others. That ultimately affected the fairness of Gilligan's trial.
Gilligan listened intently yesterday as his counsel outlined some of his 27 grounds of appeal.
These relate to pre-trial and disclosure issues, to the conduct of the trial, to the judgment and reasoning on which that judgment was based and to issues relating to the conviction but separate from the reasoning of the judgment.
Mr O'Higgins said a crucial issue in the appeal was the operation of the witness protection programme. It was not at issue that the State had a right to have such programmes, but the implementation of this programme was very much at issue.
Another very significant issue was the absence of corroborative evidence to support the evidence from John Dunne, another alleged former associate of Gilligan, Russell Warren and Charles Bowden.
Gilligan also came to the appeal court armed with a number of very significant findings of fact by the trial court, including findings adverse to the State and the witness programme, counsel said.
Mr O'Higgins said the court must address the background to the case and assess the nature of the evidence in detail. The judgment of the Special Criminal Court did not set out all that was established, particularly all the material confirming that Charles Bowden was a serial liar and perjurer. There was incontrovertible evidence to show that on each and every occasion he had a platform to speak, whether sworn or unsworn, Bowden lied at every opportunity. At one point he had written a nauseating letter suggesting the Guerin family would like to see him out of jail. He was a "highly skilled propagandist" and he and others had received "derisory" sentences.
Mr O'Higgins said he was not arguing that immunity could never be granted but the manner in which immunity was granted in this case was very wrong. There was "no such thing as a free lunch". It was clear from Bowden's evidence he believed his role was to secure convictions and he had cut and measured his evidence to fit the changes in his script.
Bowden had at one point fled the country apparently because he feared he would be charged with the murder of Ms Guerin. Following his arrest in England, he made a statement setting out, for the first time, new allegations against John Gilligan. These related to an alleged meeting in the house of Thomas Gilligan, brother of John Gilligan, and to an alleged conversation with John Gilligan prior to a meeting between Bowden and John Dunne at the Ambassador Hotel. However, Mr Dunne was emphatic he could not place John Gilligan at the Ambassador Hotel at the time Charles Bowden was there.
Counsel also noted that a senior civil servant had stated in a memo that the issue of overnight temporary release for Bowden and others would be dependent on their performance in court. These were compromised witnesses who were threatening to compromise the entire criminal justice system. There must be a point where that became unacceptable and someone shouted stop.
Dealing with other grounds, he argued that the identification evidence in the case was insufficient to support a conviction as was the evidence of Gilligan's alleged association with a drug gang operating from Greenmount Industrial Estate. Evidence of association between other alleged gang members was not evidence which could advance the claim that Gilligan was involved with the gang.
He said the Special Criminal Curt had, in its judgment, drawn inferences from certain facts inferences which were not justified in law.
The appeal continues today before Mr Justice McCracken, presiding, Mr Justice Quirke and Mr Justice Peart.
