Tracey Gilligan, a daughter of convicted drug dealer John Gilligan, has won her case arguing the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) mishandled her social welfare applications.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on Thursday that it was unlawful for the CAB, in accepting jurisdiction for her applications, to have relied upon a 1998 decision in a different social welfare request made by Ms Gilligan.
To refer an application to the bureau, the Minister for Social Protection must provide a fresh certification about perceived risks associated with that “particular” claim, the judge held.
The CAB Act permits the minister to refer an application to the bureau if she certifies there are “reasonable grounds for believing” her officers “may be subject to threats or other forms of intimidation while investigating the claim".
In her judicial review case, Ms Gilligan said she is not involved in any criminal activity and is “at a loss” as to why she is being treated as though she is.
She claimed the CAB acted unlawfully by commencing its investigation into her requests for disability and supplementary welfare allowances.
Describing herself as a homemaker living in Elphin, Co Roscommon, Ms Gilligan alleged she was being treated differently because of her familial connections.
Her father John (72) was once one of the biggest importers of drugs into the Republic and his gang murdered crime journalist Veronica Guerin in 1996. He was charged with her murder but was acquitted. He was convicted on drug charges and was released from prison in October 2013.
Ms Gilligan’s recent applications for disability and supplementary welfare allowances were disallowed in June 2023 and these decisions were upheld five months later.
Her proceedings asked the High Court to overturn decisions refusing to review her welfare claims via the standard mechanism.
In court on Thursday, senior counsel Shane Murphy, for the CAB and State parties, said his clients, in accepting her applications were a matter for the bureau, relied on a ministerial certificate from 1998 in a different application she made.
Derek Shortall, instructed by Staunton Caulfield & Co, argued this approach was unlawful, as a fresh certification is required on each application.
He said his client was not given adequate explanations for why her applications were transferred to the bureau.
Giving his ruling after hearing the case on Thursday morning, Mr Justice Simons said the relevant “statute is clear and there is no doubt in relation to interpretation”. He said an individualised decision must be made in each application.
There were various constitutional points raised, but he did not need to rule on these, he said. A written judgement will be issued in the coming weeks, he said, as he scheduled for the case to return to court at the end of the month.
