The Court of Criminal Appeal found that Charles Bowden, Russell Warren and John Dunne had been taken into a witness protection programme and there was no doubt that this had conferred considerable benefits on them.
Bowden and Warren had been given immunity against prosecution for possible charges of murder. Although there had been no official immunity given in relation to other offences, in respect of which there had been considerable evidence against them, they had not been prosecuted.
In relation to offences for which they had been prosecuted, they had been given light sentences. It was difficult to see how this could be laid at the door of the prosecution or of the State as the sentencing had been solely a matter for the trial judge.
They had been given new identities abroad and financial assistance to enable them to start a new life. They had both been repaid substantial amounts of money which had been seized by the gardaí and which had been almost certainly the proceeds of crime.
Bowden had negotiated on his own and Warren's behalf to obtain further and better benefits for himself and his co-conspirator in return for giving evidence. Some of the negotiations had taken place somewhat surreptitiously and no notes had been kept by the gardaí of these meetings.
"While the court accepts there is no obligation on the gardaí to keep notes of such meetings, nevertheless the absence of notes can give rise to suspicions or inferences that matters were discussed which might be described as inducements to the witnesses, not only to give evidence, but to give evidence satisfactory to the prosecution," the judges stated.
There had certainly been some disturbing factors in the way in which the authorities had sought to obtain the evidence of Bowden and Warren.
This had been the first time a witness protection programme had been implemented in the State and one of the most worrying features had been that there never seemed to have actually been a programme.
"There ought to have been clear guidelines from the beginning as to what could or could not be offered to the witnesses. This was not done, and instead there was an ongoing series of demands by the witnesses, most of which, it must be said, were rejected, but the position was kept fluid almost right up to the time when they gave evidence."
The judges added that the evidence of Bowden and Warren had been sought in the prosecution of others in connection primarily with the murder of Veronica Guerin. It appeared that each time they had been asked to give evidence, their demands increased.
This could hardly be viewed as surprising as the authorities had appeared at all times to have been open to negotiation. This ought not to have been allowed to happen.
The court found that Gilligan had taken personal delivery of cartons of drugs at the Ambassador Hotel car park and that the quantities involved were such that quite clearly they could not have been in his possession for his own use and, if not, then there had been a proper presumption of sale and supply.
The judges held that the Special Criminal Court's finding that Gilligan had been the leader of the drugs gang had been largely based on evidence of association and was unsafe.
They were satisfied Gilligan had been rightly convicted of offences of possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of supplying them to members of the so-called gang.