Legal argument over the seizure of John Gilligan's assets has been adjourned for two weeks by the Special Criminal Court.
|
|
John Gilligan: back in court for legal arguments over the seizure of his assets
|
Gilligan was sentenced to 28 years for the importation of millions of pounds worth of cannabis into the State last month.
His counsel, Mr Michael O'Higgins SC began preliminary legal submissions today to argue that the Special Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction over what he called a civil matter.
Mr O’Higgins told the court that the proceedings should be a civil case or an act of administration and not of criminality.
He argued that the trial of John Gilligan ended with his conviction and it was not the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court to carry out an inquiry into his assets, which would be, he said, a consequential action.
He added if the inquiry was carried out in the Special Criminal Court then his client was entitled to ask what criminal offence he had been charged with.
Referring to the Criminal Justice Act 1994, Mr O’Higgins said nowhere within Section 43 (of the Act) is it enacted that "this court can engage in civil matters".
In response, counsel for the State Mr Peter Charlton QC said "this court is a court", and the word 'special' didn't detract from that in any way.
He said the effect of Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 (Amended) was an enlargement all the functions of the court to pursue the confiscation of the proceeds of drug dealing, which applied in Gilligan’s case.
Mr Charlton said he had many questions for Gilligan about his money, property, travel, gambling and his dependence on social welfare. He said something had to explain the millions of pounds under investigation, and that explanation was already found through Gilligan’s conviction last month.
Earlier Mr O’Higgins had also argued that becausea separate Supreme Court challenge by John and Geraldine Gilligan over the seizure of their assets is currently under way, it would be "well advised" to await the outcome of those proceedings.
He also told Mr Justice O’Donovan that the State had employed the services of a forensic accountant who had compiled an analysis of the "central planks" of the State’s case. Mr O’Higgins said he would be asking for time to not only consider this analysis, but to also conduct his own analysis of the State’s case against his client.
Mr Justice O’Donovan adjourned the matter until May 8th.