A SUPREME COURT judgment involving a number of members of the Gilligan family was delivered in camera yesterday when the court ruled that the proceedings should be held otherwise than in public.
The case was brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, and involved an application by Mr Michael F. Murphy of the Criminal Assets Bureau against Mr John Gilligan, Ms Geraldine Gilligan, Mr Darren Gilligan and Ms Tracey Gilligan.
The case had been before the High Court and came to the Supreme Court by way of an appeal by the Gilligans.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, who sat with Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Justice Barron, gave an initial judgment in which he said his remarks were confined to the important procedural issue whether the proceedings should be heard in camera.
He said it was important to reiterate that Article 34 of the Constitution provided that: "Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.
The Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, section 8(3), expressly provided that: "Proceedings under this Act in relation to an interim order shall be heard otherwise than in public and any other proceedings under this Act may, if the respondent or any other party to the proceedings (other than the applicant) so requests and the court considers it proper, be heard otherwise than in public."
The Chief Justice said it had been held by the Supreme Court (in Irish Press plc and Ingersoll Publications Ltd, 1993) that legislation permitting justice to be administered otherwise than in public must be strictly construed, having regard to the provisions of Article 34 (1).
He continued: "However, bearing in mind that admonition, it was clear that the Oireachtas imposed a mandatory requirement that the administration of justice in so far as related to the application and the granting of an interim order under the 1996 Act must be held in camera.
"I would infer that the purpose of that mandatory provision is to protect from unfair publicity a respondent against whom an allegation - necessarily a serious allegation - is made under the Act before the respondent has an opportunity of putting his or her side of the case.
"In interlocutory or subsequent applications, a respondent would not be embarrassed to the same extent but it may have been anticipated that even at that stage he would not have had an adequate opportunity to investigate the claims made against him.
"Logically, this would provide an explanation as to why the Oireachtas conferred upon the courts a discretion to permit interlocutory applications under the Act to be heard in camera.
"It is the contention of Geraldine Gilligan that she had not either the time or the resources with which to make the case which she wishes to put forward a9d indeed the present application relates to obtaining or having made available to her such resources.
In the circumstances, I have no doubt that the learned President (of the High Court) was correct in exercising his jurisdiction, under the Act to hear the applications before him otherwise than in public.
"I feel that this court should exercise its discretion in the same way. This is particularly so as if this court were to take a different view it would necessarily involve giving publicity to material which the learned President in the proper exercise of his discretion treated as confidential in the sense that the proceedings before him were held in camera.
"I am satisfied, therefore, that the proceedings in this court should be held otherwise than in public.
"I should, however, emphasise that in expressing that view, I am dealing exclusively with the particular appeal."