The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, affirming a High Court ruling that the Special Criminal Court lacked jurisdiction to make a confiscation order under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, as amended.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J on 21 December 2005, concerned an order requiring John Gilligan to pay €17,679,833 within 12 months. The Special Criminal Court had made the order after determining that he had benefited from drug trafficking. The Supreme Court held that the purported order was null and void because the legislation did not expressly give the Special Criminal Court jurisdiction to make it.
Gilligan had been convicted by the Special Criminal Court of drug trafficking offences and sentenced to 28 years in prison in March 2001. His sentence was later reduced to 20 years by the Court of Criminal Appeal. In the subsequent confiscation proceedings, the Special Criminal Court assessed the net amount of cannabis resin for which he was responsible at 17,530 kilos. It calculated a purchase cost of £21,036,000 and proceeds of £35,060,000, allowing £100,000 for payment to John Dunne and expenses. It assessed the benefit at £13,924,000, equivalent to €17,679,833.
Gilligan brought proceedings in the High Court challenging the Special Criminal Court’s jurisdiction and the constitutionality of provisions of the 1994 Act. The High Court ruled that the Special Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to make the section 4 determination. The Attorney General and DPP appealed, arguing that the confiscation power was sufficiently ancillary to the trial of offences to fall within that court’s jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court addressed jurisdiction first. It reasoned that the Special Criminal Court is constitutionally established to try offences, and that its jurisdiction must be strictly construed. While the law expressly provides for certain ancillary powers, section 4 did not expressly extend the confiscation jurisdiction to the Special Criminal Court. The court concluded that a significant power to determine criminal benefit and order confiscation could not be inferred from its trial jurisdiction.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order on jurisdiction affirmed. The court said that this decision was sufficient to dispose of the case, so it did not decide the constitutional challenge. It also stated that the invalid purported order was not a bar to related or other proceedings in other courts.