Dublin man not able to fund legal defence of CAB case, court told

A DUBLIN man, Mr Gerry Hutch, is unable to pay lawyers to challenge a £2 million tax bill from the Criminal Assets Bureau because…

A DUBLIN man, Mr Gerry Hutch, is unable to pay lawyers to challenge a £2 million tax bill from the Criminal Assets Bureau because the bureau has seized the deeds of property which he owns, the High Court was told yesterday. In those circumstances, Mr Hutch cannot sell to realise any assets, the court heard.

Mr Justice O'Higgins asked whether legal aid might be available to Mr Hutch (36), who has an address at The Paddocks, Clontarf, Dublin.

The judge said that he would fix March 19th for the hearing of a CAB application for judgment in the sum of £1,984,626 against Mr Hutch. The amount involves several tax assessments from 1988 to 1996 and includes interest.

Last week the court had adjourned the hearing for a week. In court yesterday, Mr Richard Humphries, for Mr Hutch, sought an adjournment until the next term. He had been asked to come into the case only on Thursday and had had very little opportunity to familiarise himself with it.

READ MORE

The judge said that there was a perception on the CAB side that the process of the court was being abused. It had been claimed that Mr Hutch was playing "ducks and drakes" with the court. Mr Humphries said that the last thing he would attempt to do was play ducks and drakes with the court. The judge said he was sure of that.

The judge said there was an implicit suggestion from Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the CAB, that the late briefing of counsel, which did not reflect on Mr Humphries, was an illegitimate tactic by Mr Humphries's client. Mr Humph ries rejected any innuendo that tactics were involved or that there was abuse of the court process.

The judge said that, in the circumstances, Mr Nesbitt's allegations of late briefing went unanswered and unchallenged.

Ms Gabrielle Wolfe, solicitor for Mr Hutch, said that she wished to take Mr Humphries off record and give an explanation. She could not have it on record that she did not brief counsel.

She had spoken to Dr Michael Forde SC on Wednesday and to a junior counsel on Thursday and had found out at 7 p.m. on Thursday that Dr Forde was not dealing with the matter. It was incorrect to say that she did not brief counsel until Thursday night. There had been difficulties in briefing counsel.

Mr Justice O'Higgins asked if he was to take it that, as of yesterday afternoon, different counsel to Mr Humphries were to be before him. Ms Wolfe said that she had attended on those counsel during the week.

The judge accepted the explanation and adjourned the case.