Gilligan brings case to leave jail to Supreme Court
His lawyers yesterday claimed before the five-judge court that mandatory consecutive prison sentences imposed on those convicted of an offence while serving time are unconstitutional.
Gilligan’s challenge arises out of a number of prison sentences he has received since he was convicted by the Special Criminal Court in Mar 2001 of several counts of unlawfully importing and possessing cannabis resin.
In his action against the State and the governor of Portlaoise Prison, Gilligan claims that a section of the 1976 Criminal Justice Act, which requires any sentence imposed on a prisoner, for an offence committed while serving a prison sentence, must be served consecut-ively, is unconstitutional.
The State respondents oppose Gilligan’s action.
Gilligan, aged 61, is seeking various declarations from the court. These include that Section 13 of the 1976 act is unconstitutional, and that the consecutive prison terms imposed on him are void. He further claims he should be released from prison.
Last year at the High Court, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy dismissed Gilligan’s action. However, Gilligan appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard that on the application of normal remission, Gilligan’s 20-year sentence for the various drug offences sentence expired in Oct 2011.
In 2006 Gilligan received a two-year sentence, which began on the date of the expiry of the drug sentence, for assaulting a prison officer.
Gilligan has twice been convicted, at Portlaoise District Court in 2011 and the Special Criminal Court last year, for the unauthorised possession of a mobile phone in prison. The Special Criminal Court imposed a six-month term of imprisonment on Gilligan.
His appeal against the eight-month prison term he received in 2011 in Portlaoise has been stayed pending the outcome of his constitutional action.
Following the conclusion of submissions from both sides, the five-judge court reserved its decision.
