Counsel criticises inquiry's methods

Counsel for the Dublin auctioneer Mr John Finnegan, who was found to have been involved in making a corrupt payment to the former minister Mr Ray Burke, has strongly criticised the manner in which the planning tribunal has carried out its work.

Mr Dominic Hussey SC said yesterday that on one occasion following a dispute over an aspect of the tribunal's dealings with his client, he had been told by one member of the inquiry's then legal team, Mr Patrick Hanratty SC, that "we will stop the peripheral s...-four-letter-word if you give us something on Burke".

Mr Hussey said he was flabbergasted at Mr Hanratty's remarks.

Mr Des O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, said that it was unfair for Mr Hussey to make an allegation without notice against a legal colleague.

Mr Hussey said that he understood that Mr Hanratty had not been acting on a frolic of his own and that the tribunal knew what its counsel were doing and saying.

Mr Hussey's comments came in the course of an application on behalf of Mr Finnegan to the tribunal for costs believed to be in excess of €470,000.

Mr Finnegan was found by the tribunal in a report two years ago to have contributed Stg £10,000 towards a corrupt payment of Stg £60,000 made to Mr Burke in 1984.

Mr Finnegan was also found to have obstructed the tribunal.

Mr Hussey said that his client, Mr Finnegan, had been parachuted into a module of the tribunal which was investigating the relationship between Mr Burke and the developers, Mr Tom Brennan and Mr Joe McGowan.

He said it had been impossible to comply with the incessant demands of the tribunal for documents which were flying around like confetti. The sheer human impossibility of dealing with the requests from the tribunal meant that his client could not but be in default.

Mr Hussey said that on one occasion he had challenged another member of the tribunal's legal team, Ms Patricia Dillon SC, on this issue and asked "was it about costs?".

He said she replied "smart boy" which he took as a confirmation.

Mr Hussey said that his client stated and still states that he did not know that his money was to be used in a payment made to Mr Burke in 1984.

He said the tribunal's finding against Mr Finnegan had been based on a deduction on the balance of probabilities and not an absolute finding.

He said there was a world of a difference between somebody who set out to circumvent the tribunal and somebody who testified on an issue that happened 25 years ago and who found that the evidence of others was preferred to their evidence.

Mr Hussey said that the rejection of evidence could not be a reason to refuse his client his costs.

Mr O'Neill, for the tribunal, said that Mr Finnegan had consciously decided not to explain his relationship with Mr Brennan and Mr McGowan.

He said that Mr Finnegan had engaged his lawyers for the purpose of protecting his interest as he saw it, which involved not giving information to the tribunal that it did not have from other sources.

Meanwhile, in a separate application, lawyers for the former government press secretary, Mr P.J. Mara, sought that the State would pay his costs arising from the tribunal, believed to be in excess of €80,000.

Mr Mara was criticised by the tribunal for failing to provide it with details of an account held in the Isle of Man.

Mr John McMenamin SC, for Mr Mara, said that his client accepted and apologised for this omission which he maintained had not constituted a hindrance to the tribunal. He said that no adverse finding had been made against his client on the substantive issues that the tribunal was investigating.