John Gilligan never received a fair trial because the Special Criminal Court (SCC), as a result of admitting evidence from compromised witnesses who believed they were getting money to implicate their accomplices, allowed itself to become involved in a "poisoned" process, counsel for Gilligan has claimed before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Mr John Rogers SC, for Gilligan, asked how Gilligan could deal with compromised witnesses Charles Bowden and Russell Warren, when those men were doing business with the gardaí in relation to Gilligan's upcoming trial at meetings of which there were no notes. This was "simply unfair".
These were witnesses who had the perception that their benefits and welfare under the witness protection programme were dependent on how they gave evidence.
He asked the court to consider the "enormous inconsistency" where the SCC on the one hand acquitted Gilligan of the murder of Veronica Guerin because it did not believe evidence from Warren and Bowden about that, but on the other hand convicted Gilligan on drug charges on the basis of accepting some of the evidence of the same men.
Instead of engaging in a systematic forensic analysis of the evidence of Bowden and Warren, how they secured immunity from prosecution and got money, and how that was all related to their relationship with gardaí, the SCC engaged in "an intellectual exercise" that did not take into account the evidence actually given in court and its context, he said.
This was a a case where vital prosecution witnesses were never charged with a number of serious offences for which they could have been charged. It was also a case where monies were given to vital witnesses which purported to belong to those witnesses but which were the likely proceeds of crime. It was likely that Bowden and Warren had a perception they were being intimidated and blackmailed by the State and generally believed their situation was "performance related".
While the SCC did accept these were compromised witnesses, the court failed to reach the necessary conclusion, that it should not listen to compromised witnesses, counsel said. The evidence of these witnesses should have been excluded. In not doing so, the SCC authenticated and admitted a basic unfairness into the trial. This was a case where the entire criminal justice system had been "infused with badness".
Yesterday was the second day of the appeal by Gilligan against his conviction and 28-year sentence on drug offences. He was jailed by the non-jury Special Criminal Court in March 2001 after being found guilty of importing cannabis resin and having the drug for sale and supply. The trial lasted 45 days.
He was acquitted of the murder of Veronica Guerin in June 1996 and also acquitted of a number of firearms charges.
Mr Rogers said the thrust of his submissions was that the SCC, as a matter of fairness and fair procedure, should have never admitted the evidence of Bowden and Warren. What the appeal was about was whether Gilligan had got a fair trial. The court should look at the way the process was skewed when it came to the giving of evidence from Bowden and Warren, he said.
The appeal continues today.
