The total conduct of the prosecution of John Gilligan was "so deliberate and so shocking" that society could only properly be served by imposing a stay on it, the Supreme Court was told yesterday.
The trial of Gilligan before the non-jury Special Criminal Court was not a trial in due course of law and was unfair, Gilligan's senior counsel John Rogers argued. The trial court was wrong, he contended, not to have excluded evidence given to the trial by accomplice and "compromised" witnesses who were serial perjurers.
Evidence or convictions may sometimes be obtained "at too high a price", counsel said. It was for the courts to protect the law from abuse and to ensure the balance of power between an individual accused and the State was such that the rights of both parties must be recognised and protected.
The courts must react not so much against an abuse of procedure but against the much wider and more serious abuse of the criminal justice system in general, he added. What was at issue here was Gilligan's constitutional right to a fair trial.
In this case, Mr Rogers contended, evidence was collected from witnesses which incriminated Gilligan. These witnesses had been paid money and given concessions.
The same witnesses had given evidence at other trials, including of Paul Ward and Brian Meehan, and his side had shown they had perjured themselves in those trials and in Gilligan's trial.
"We know evidence was obtained from Charles Bowden and Russell Warren between October 1996 and July 1997. It was obtained from them by a process of interview, inducement and concession," he said. These men were encouraged to co-operate by being paid money, he added. There was a reliance on people who were compromised by this process and this could not be fair.
Counsel was continuing submissions in the appeal by Gilligan against his conviction in 2001 on charges of having cannabis resin for sale or supply.
Gilligan was acquitted of the murder of journalist Veronica Guerin in June 1996 and also acquitted on firearms charges. He was jailed for 28 years for the drug offences, later reduced to 20 years on appeal.
The hearing continues today before the five-judge court.
