A barrister representing the Director of Public Prosecutions has accused former Taoiseach Mr Charles Haughey of trying permanently to block his trial for obstructing the McCracken tribunal.
Speaking at an application by Mr Haughey to adjourn the trial until the Moriarty tribunal had ended, Mr Maurice Gaffney SC said Mr Haughey was to blame for his own reputation, not the media or the legal system.
He also said that Mr Haughey's application to adjourn the trial was "founded on sand".
Earlier, Mr Eoin McGonigal, for Mr Haughey, said that his client had been "saturated" with adverse publicity arising out of the Moriarty tribunal. He added that Mr Haughey may now appear before the tribunal to repair his "tattered" reputation.
Mr Gaffney told Judge Kevin Haugh at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court that there would never be a time in Mr Haughey's life when potential members of the jury would not have an opinion about him.
Anything Mr Haughey did excited enormous public attention, even if it was opening a festival in a remote part of the country.
Mr Gaffney noted Mr Justice Geoghegan's comments during a Zoe Developments case, in which he said a criminal trial should be held after adverse publicity about an accused person had faded from public memory.
Mr Gaffney said the Zoe case concerned the alleged misdeed of a company, and such adverse pre-trial publicity was likely to fade from the public's memory. In Mr Haughey's case, the jury would deal with a man whose place in history would never be forgotten.
He added that Mr Haughey's application to adjourn the trial was "founded on sand - a great deal of sand, but sand nevertheless".
Mr Gaffney said the DPP would be attempting to prove the case against Mr Haughey largely through the words of witnesses who will testify to the accuracy of various documents which will "speak for themselves".
He said it was hoped the documents would show that Mr Haughey made statements to the McCracken tribunal which he knew were incorrect. Mr Gaffney said he was using the word "incorrect" very, very mildly.
He agreed with Judge Haugh that Mr Haughey's state of mind when he made the statements to the McCracken tribunal would be central to the trial. Judge Haugh asked if this factor did not mean that pre-trial publicity in the media would have an adverse affect on Mr Haughey's right to a fair trial.
Mr Gaffney said the Juries Act ensured, as far as possible, that nobody took an oath as a jury member if they doubted their ability to hear a case fairly.
Judge Haugh noted that barristers were not allowed to question potential jurors before the jury selection process takes place. He said that in Mr Haughey's case, some questions may have to be put to jurors. Mr Gaffney said Mr Haughey was a famous person with a "history", and this might lead to inappropriate lines being drawn among the jury, but the judge and barristers would no doubt remind them of their duty to decide the case fairly. Mr Gaffney said Irish people had become better educated about their duty to hear a case on the facts alone.
He warned that the jury system was "dead" unless the courts accepted that malice would not play a part in the deliberations of juries. Mr Gaffney said that in the McCracken tribunal, Mr Haughey at first said he had not received money from Mr Ben Dunne, then later agreed he had. The DPP would have to show that he knew about the money and had misled the tribunal.
He told Judge Haugh that if the case was not proven, and the jury still convicted, the verdict could be shown to be perverse and a legal remedy sought.
He said Mr Haughey had been given every opportunity to respond to accusations made against him at the Moriarty tribunal and had so far declined to do so.
The hearing continues.