The effective absence of any controls on Mr James Gogarty in the witness box led to him abusing his position as a privileged witness, counsel at the Flood Tribunal claimed yesterday.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering (JMSE) and Mr Joseph Murphy, said he wanted to raise a matter relating to Mr Gogarty giving evidence the previous day and the "effective absence of any controls on Mr Gogarty by you [chairman] or counsel for the tribunal". The result of this had been that Mr Gogarty had abused his position as a privileged witness and made comments which were irrelevant to the issues which had to be tried and which were gravely defamatory of his client, he said.
Mr Cooney said that in the Examiner yesterday a headline read: "Suicide was attempted by businessman who lost £6 million in enterprise". This was a total distortion of what was said by the witness, Mr Cooney said. "But the fact of the matter is that the witness was permitted to say this in the witness box which lead to this admittedly inaccurate headline," he said.
He would ask that the tribunal lawyers could exercise some control. Every citizen in the country had a constitutional right to their good name. "It is entirely disgraceful that my client, Mr Joseph Murphy, should be subjected to the type of abuse which has come from the witness box and Mr Gogarty," Mr Cooney said.
He would ask that the remainder of Mr Gogarty's evidence be confined strictly to answering questions put to him.
Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, said the tribunal was established to inquire into certain matters of urgent public importance. Allegations were made in Mr Gogarty's affidavit. Statements were furnished in reply and the majority of statements took issue with what was deposed by Mr Gogarty. The (replying) statements alleged that what Mr Gogarty said was false and untrue.
Regarding the position raised by Mr Cooney, Mr Gogarty was asked a specific question about the personal relationship between him (Mr Gogarty) and Mr Murphy and it was in that context that the matter arose, Mr Gallagher said.
It seemed to him that it was important to hear as much evidence as appropriate so that the chairman could evaluate the evidence and witnesses and make a decision as to what weight should be attached to the evidence.
The tribunal decided what evidence to hear and was not bound by the strict rules of evidence that applied to the courts. The tribunal may decide its own rules, subject to the requirements of natural justice, he said.