An application by Mr Gerry Hutch for legal aid to challenge a £1.9 million tax assessment was rejected in the High Court yesterday.
Mr Justice Kelly held that evidence given by Mr Hutch's solicitor, Ms Gabrielle Wolfe, as to her client's means was not sufficient and it was for Mr Hutch to give evidence of his assets.
Mr Hutch had argued that he required legal aid to pay lawyers to represent him in High Court proceedings due to start next Tuesday. In the proceedings he is opposing an application by the Criminal Assets Bureau to recover more than £1.9 million. The debt arises out of an assessment for alleged unpaid income tax and interest.
Last month Mr Hutch, of the Paddocks, Haddon Park, Clontarf, Dublin, had been refused the return of deeds to properties in Lower Buckingham Street, Dublin, which were seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau. He claimed he needed the deeds so that he could sell property to fund his legal defence.
Rejecting the legal aid application yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly said Mr Hutch claimed that if he did not receive funding from the public purse he would not be able to instruct counsel for next Tuesday's hearing.
The judge said the matter of obtaining legal aid had come before Ms Justice McGuinness last month. A notable feature of that application and of the present one was that Mr Hutch had at no stage appeared to give evidence, nor had he submitted a sworn affidavit to support his application.
Judge McGuinness had made clear that an application brought for legal aid by Mr Hutch or any other citizen always involved a court adjudication as to an applicant's means. She had said it was not a matter of looking into Mr Hutch's "Communion money" but looking into his assets.
Mr Justice Kelly said that before granting legal aid a court must have evidence, not of a wish to pay for legal aid out of a particular asset but that an applicant had insufficient means to pay for a legal defence.
Ms Wolfe had given evidence which did not go near discharging the onus on Mr Hutch if he wished to have an order made in his favour, the judge said.
Ms Wolfe had not been able to apprise the court of the full picture concerning her client's assets and it was probably no surprise that she was unable to do so.
Mr Justice Kelly referred to previous evidence by a Criminal Assets Bureau officer that he believed Mr Hutch had assets in this country and offshore. That evidence had not been challenged by Ms Wolfe. In fairness, Ms Wolfe had not been in a position to give information concerning Mr Hutch's assets other than the properties in Lower Buckingham Street.
The judge refused the application and awarded cost against Mr Hutch.
Earlier, Ms Wolfe had told the court that from her information the four properties at Lower Buckingham Street were not the proceeds of crime. One house had been bought in the name of Patricia Hutch, wife of the applicant. Two houses were in the name of Mr Hutch's mother and a fourth was in the name of a sister. There was a purchaser for one of the houses, which had planning permission with one year to run.
In cross-examination, Ms Wolfe said she did not know if Mr Hutch had other properties.
Mr Maurice Collins, for the Criminal Assets Bureau, said his client's concern was that Mr Hutch should not be allowed defend himself at the cost of the public purse if in fact he had other assets.