The Supreme Court has ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear John Gilligan’s appeal against the severity of his sentence because the certified appeal points concerned his conviction only.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 10 July 2006, the Court held that section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 did not allow an appellant to use a certificate relating to a decision on conviction to appeal a decision on sentence.
Gilligan had been convicted by the Special Criminal Court on 15 March 2001 of six counts of possessing cannabis for sale or supply and five counts of unlawful importation. He received concurrent 28-year terms for the sale and supply counts and concurrent 12-year terms for importation. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction in August 2003. In November 2003, it reduced the 28-year terms to 20 years and left the other sentences in place.
The Court of Criminal Appeal certified points of law of exceptional public importance concerning evidence from witnesses who may have been in a State Witness Protection Programme, and whether accomplice witnesses who participated in such a programme required corroboration. The certificate related to the refusal of leave to appeal against conviction. There was no certificate concerning sentence.
The Supreme Court had already dismissed Gilligan’s appeal against conviction. He then said he intended to pursue an appeal against sentence. The Court invited submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to hear that appeal. His counsel argued that the Constitution and a flexible reading of section 29 allowed the Court to consider it. The Director of Public Prosecutions took no position on the statutory interpretation, while submitting that an earlier Supreme Court judgment relied on by Gilligan should not be followed.
Fennelly J distinguished appeals against conviction from appeals against sentence, noting that they concern different questions and that the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 provides separate powers for each. He concluded that where a certificate concerns conviction, an appeal may be brought against the conviction; a certificate concerning sentence is needed to appeal the sentence.
The Court therefore held it had no jurisdiction to entertain Gilligan’s sentence appeal. The judgment determined the Court’s authority to hear that appeal; it did not reconsider the sentences themselves.