Former Fianna Fáil politician Ger Killally was unfairly punished by the extension of his bankruptcy term by a year, his lawyer has argued before the Supreme Court.
Mr Killally, a former councillor and election running mate of former Taoiseach Brian Cowen, is appealing a High Court decision last May that his exit from bankruptcy should be postponed for a year arising out of his conviction for stealing €18,000 worth of refrigeration equipment from his bankrupt estate.
Mr Killally, Edenderry, Co Offaly, had applied for bankruptcy due to debts of more than €70 million. In July 2009, he was adjudicated bankrupt.
Under the more lenient bankruptcy regime recently introduced, he was entitled to automatic discharge from that status last June.
However, at Midland Circuit Court in November 2012, he pleaded guilty to theft of the refrigeration equipment which was under the control of the court-appointed official administering his estate, the official assignee Chris Lehane.
Later, Mr Lehane applied to the High Court to extend the bankruptcy period to June next year on the basis Mr Killally failed to co-operate with the bankruptcy. Mr Lehane also had concerns about two pension plans not previously disclosed by Mr Killally.
Last May, Mr Justice Brian McGovern ruled the bankruptcy should be extended for a further 12 months.
In a Supreme Court appeal against that decision, Vincent P Martin BL, for Mr Killally, said his client spent two weeks in Cloverhill Prison in Dublin awaiting sentence during which time his family came up with the €18,000 to repay the value of the goods stolen.
At his sentencing hearing, Mr Killally was given a three-year suspended prison sentence and 240 hours community service.
He had “taken his medicine”, entered a guilty plea and repaid the value of the goods. While it had been argued on behalf of Mr Lehane the integrity of the bankruptcy system must be upheld, it should not be used to punish a person unfairly, counsel said.
Bernard Dunleavy SC, for Mr Lehane, said the official assignee must rely on the co-operation of bankrupts. Mr Lehane did not have to be satisfied the bankrupt failed to co-operate on an ongoing basis but only that he had failed to co-operate, counsel said.
The three judge Supreme Court reserved judgment.
