Gilligan v. Criminal Assets Bureau [1997] IEHC 106; [1998] 3 IR 185 (26th June, 1997)

Gilligan v. Criminal Assets Bureau [1997] IEHC 106; [1998] 3 IR 185 (26th June, 1997)

The Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, as challenged, is not unconstitutional. The Act provides for civil, not criminal, proceedings, and does not violate the presumption of innocence, right to silence, or property rights as protected by the Constitution. The Act's procedures, including judicial discretion and safeguards, ensure fair procedures. There is no constitutional bar to the retrospective application of forfeiture provisions to property derived from crime. The European Convention on Human Rights does not form part of domestic law and cannot be used to declare the Act unconstitutional.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 106
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael F. Murphy; Defendant: John Gilligan; Defendant: Geraldine Gilligan; Defendant: Tracy Gilligan; Defendant: Darren Gilligan; Defendant: Ireland; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge (plenary Summons) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Act upheld as constitutional.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Burden of Proof, Presumption of Innocence, Right to Silence, Self Incrimination, Property Rights, Retrospective Legislation, Fair Procedures, European Convention on Human Rights, European Community Law
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Proceeds of Crime Burden of Proof Presumption of Innocence Right to Silence +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael F. Murphy

Plaintiff

John Gilligan

Defendant

Geraldine Gilligan

Defendant

Tracy Gilligan

Defendant

Darren Gilligan

Defendant

Ireland

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge (plenary Summons) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, particularly Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9, is unconstitutional for violating the right to fair trial, fair procedures, presumption of innocence, privilege against self-incrimination, property rights, and for retrospective effect.

Ratio Decidendi

The Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, as challenged, is not unconstitutional. The Act provides for civil, not criminal, proceedings, and does not violate the presumption of innocence, right to silence, or property rights as protected by the Constitution. The Act's procedures, including judicial discretion and safeguards, ensure fair procedures. There is no constitutional bar to the retrospective application of forfeiture provisions to property derived from crime. The European Convention on Human Rights does not form part of domestic law and cannot be used to declare the Act unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Act upheld as constitutional.

Orders

  • Declaration refused; Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, not unconstitutional.
  • No damages awarded to plaintiff.