Cosgrave denied access to all Dunlop documents

The Flood tribunal has rejected an application by former Fine Gael senator Cllr Liam Cosgrave for access to all documents relating to Mr Frank Dunlop in its possession.

Mr Justice Flood said he was satisfied that the procedures adopted by the tribunal, under which it will investigate each rezoning decision on a module-by-module basis, were fair. Any other procedure would produce a disorganised and fragmented investigation.

There was a risk of damage to the reputation of individuals figuring in allegations, he acknowledged, but this was "beyond the control of the tribunal". Every effort would be made to minimise such damage.

Mr Cosgrave is one of a number of Dublin county councillors to whom Mr Dunlop says he made payments in connection with attempts to rezone land at Carrickmines in the 1990s.

Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Mr Cosgrave, said Mr Dunlop had "an understanding" with former Fine Gael senator Mr Liam Cosgrave, which led to him making payments totalling £8,000 to the politician in the 1990s.

He said Mr Dunlop had claimed the two men had "some sort of unspoken agreement that the donations would assist rezoning" of land.

But Mr O'Higgins said it was "nowhere alleged" that Mr Cosgrave had entered into any agreement to do anything on foot of the payments at the time or subsequently.

Mr Cosgrave's lawyers describe Mr Dunlop as a "self-confessed perjurer" in correspondence with the tribunal, disclosed yesterday.

He said Mr Dunlop has told the tribunal Mr Cosgrave was paid £2,000 in 1991, £5,000 in 1992 and £1,000 in 1993. These coincided with a local election, a general election and a Seanad election, respectively.

Mr O'Higgins applied to the tribunal for access to all written documents submitted by Mr Dunlop, whether these were formal statements or notes of conversations with the tribunal and whether they related to the current module of investigations or not.

He was entitled to "every line of every statement Mr Dunlop had made" in order to defend his client's name, Mr O'Higgins said.

Mr Des O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, said that disclosing the entirety of Mr Dunlop's allegations at this stage would lead to a large number of people cross-examining in the current module. This would lead to "a multiplicity of allegations and counter-allegations" that would render the tribunal "unmanageable and unworkable".

Mr O'Higgins said this conclusion was "grossly in error". It could be that virtually all of the material sought would not assist Mr Cosgrave's case. However, this was Mr Cosgrave's "call" through his legal advisers; it wasn't a decision to be taken by another lawyer who wasn't at the tribunal to vindicate Mr Cosgrave's rights.

"If there's only one document out of 10,000 that assists him, that's enough," he said.

The credibility of Mr Dunlop would be central to the resolution of the tribunal's investigations, he said. Mr Dunlop had been slow to co-operate with the tribunal.

Mr O'Neill, for the tribunal, said the application had already been rejected in correspondence with Mr Cosgrave's legal team. The tribunal was master of its own procedures.

Counsel said Mr Dunlop was alleging that he paid Mr Cosgrave £2,000 in connection with the rezoning of lands owned by the businessmen Mr Brian O'Halloran, Mr Gerard Kilcoyne and Prof Austin Darragh, and £5,000 to Mr Cosgrave and Cllr Tony Fox in circumstances that were "specifically related" to the rezoning of the Jackson Way lands.

He said Mr Dunlop's evidence was that Mr Cosgrave was paid £5,000 in 1997, not in 1992, as stated by Mr Cosgrave's counsel.