Gilligan family in appeal over properties

DRUG dealer John Gilligan’s family claimed yesterday they were entitled to a new hearing of High Court proceedings which found their assets were the proceeds of crime.

The Gilligans, in an appeal to the Supreme Court which opened yesterday, say the original orders declaring properties they own to be funded by crime were not final and did not entitle the Criminal Assets Bureau to seek to have those properties forfeited to the State.

The High Court has already found that properties bought by the Gilligans are the proceeds of crime. If the Supreme Court rejects the appeal, the bureau will be entitled to proceed to sell the properties.

The Gilligans claim they were never afforded a proper hearing when the proceeds of crime applications were first made in December 1996 and subsequently in July 1997.

They want the Supreme Court to order that such a hearing should take place at which witnesses could be called and other information could be presented.

The affected properties include Jessbrook House, where Ms Geraldine Gilligan lives, and its attached equestrian centre at Enfield in Co Meath, the former Gilligan family home in Corduff Avenue, Blanchardstown; and two houses in Lucan which were bought by John Gilligan for his son Darren and daughter Tracey.

After the High Court decided the properties represented the proceeds of crime, a freezing order was placed on them and the Criminal Assets Bureau’s legal officer, Frank Cassidy, was appointed receiver over them. He has since made arrangements for insuring and renting out a number of the properties with the consent of the High Court.

The bureau has also put in place a caretaker agreement which Geraldine Gilligan signed as a condition of her remaining in the house attached to the Jessbrook.

The Supreme Court appeal opened yesterday with submissions from lawyers for Geraldine, Tracey and Darren Gilligan.

John Gilligan, who was in court amid tight security and is representing himself, will address the court today.

Opening the case yesterday, Ms Gilligan’s counsel, Roderick O’Hanlon SC, said the main thrust of her appeal was that she wanted a full and “substantial hearing” of the original court orders that the property she had was the proceeds of crime.

There was no allegation that Ms Gilligan was involved in crime and it was her case that she did not know that the property involved was the proceeds of crime.

Her husband, from whom she is legally separated, had gone to “considerable lengths” to disguise how the property involved was purchased, counsel said.

If the Supreme Court found that she was entitled to a fair hearing, other issues did not arise, Mr O’Hanlon added.

The court also heard the Gilligans were seeking an extension of time to appeal the original orders.

There was a 21-day period in which those orders could be appealed but, the court heard, the Gilligans did not do so because of the belief that the orders were temporary.

The hearing continues before the five-judge court of Chief Justice John Murray, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan, Mr Justice Nial Fennelly, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns and Ms Justice Fidelma Macken.