Court approves disposal of Gilligan assets

Convicted drug dealer John Gilligan has lost his latest legal challenge against orders that his assets and those of his family were the proceeds of crime.

Mr Justice Kevin Feeney, sitting at the Criminal Courts of Justice, made an order that a number of properties owned by Gilligan and his family members should be disposed of and transferred to the Minister for Finance under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

However the judge put a stay on the order in the event of an appeal against the High Court ruling to the Supreme Court.

The action was brought under Section 3.3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 by the Gilligans on the basis that an injustice may have been caused to them when freezing orders against a number of properties were made in July 1997 by Mr Justice Michael Moriarty.

The properties include Jessbrook House in Enfield, Co Meath, where Mrs Geraldine Gilligan lives, an equestrian centre attached to it, the former family home at Corduff Ave, Blanchardstown, Dublin and two houses in Lucan which were bought by Mr Gilligan for his son Darren and daughter Tracey.

Mr Justice Feeney put a stay on the disposal of the properties at Corduff Ave, Jessbrook and Willsbrook View , Lucan in the event of an appeal because they were or are family homes.

In the case of the house at Willsbrook View, which is owned by Tracey Gilligan, the judge found that she had paid for 20% of the property but the remaining 80% has been paid for by the proceeds of crime. The judge ordered that when the property is disposed of, Tracey Gilligan should receive 20% of the proceeds from the sale.

The judge also dismissed an application by Gilligan where he sought to have the High Court declare that the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 was repugnant to the Constitution and was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Justice Feeney said that the Supreme Court had ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights Act of 2003 which incorporated the convention into domestic law cannot be interpreted as having retrospective effect or affecting past events.

He said that the events , litigation and orders of which both John and Geraldine Gilligan had made a complaint about in the proceedings all related to matters which occurred before December 31st, 2003 when the European Act came into force.

The judge also said that there had been no violation of Gilligan’s constitutional rights by the proceedings taken against him under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

The latest legal action follows from the Supreme Court's rejection in December 2008 of Gilligan's claims that no definitive orders were made in 1990s that the assets came from crime.

The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) had argued the orders had been properly and fully dealt with.

The Supreme Court however opened the door for the Gilligans to bring fresh High Court proceedings on the basis that an injustice may have been caused to them when the original orders were made.