THE HIGH Court will give judgment on Friday on a legal challenge brought by jailed drug dealer John Gilligan aimed at preventing his District Court prosecution for possession of a mobile phone in his cell.
Gilligan, who is serving a lengthy prison sentence in Portlaoise, faces a maximum sentence of 12 months in jail and a fine if found guilty of the offence.
He claims that should he be convicted of the charge, he would be punished twice for the same offence, as he had already been sanctioned by the prison governor following an internal disciplinary hearing for allegedly having the phone and a SIM card in his cell on July 30th, 2008.
However, the State has argued that the prison sanction, when Gilligan’s privileges were suspended for 56 days, was not a breach of the double jeopardy rule and could not prevent him from facing a criminal trial.
At the High Court yesterday, following submissions from both parties, Mr Justice Seán Ryan said he would give his judgment on Friday morning. He also adjourned until Friday an application by Gilligan’s lawyers for legal aid.
The case came before the High Court after Judge Gerard Haughton in the District Court made a ruling last May in relation to issues raised by Gilligan concerning his trial. The High Court was asked to determine if Judge Haughton was correct in law in holding that because Gilligan was subject to a prison disciplinary hearing and subsequent loss of privileges for 56 days, it did not act as a bar to a criminal prosecution of Gilligan for having a phone in his cell.
Martin Canny, for Gilligan, said yesterday the court should not look at the 56-day sanction imposed but the fact that the prison governor had a range of options available to him, such as increasing the time his client’s prison time, which amounted to criminal sanctions.
However, Paul Anthony McDermott, for the State, said the rule preventing double jeopardy had not been breached. He said Gilligan had been subject to an internal prison disciplinary process designed to maintain good order in prisons. His trial at the District Court for possession of the phone, he added, was a matter of public law.
Mr McDermott said that if Gilligan’s argument was correct, it would mean prison governors would be unable to take disciplinary action against prisoners for fear it would prevent a criminal prosecution from taking place.