Mr Michael Bailey admitted yesterday that he did not tell the truth to a journalist, Frank Connolly, about the reason he gave Mr James Gogarty a cheque for £50,000 in 1989, the tribunal was told yesterday.
Mr Bailey said he told Mr Connolly an untrue version because he did not want to tell him that Mr Gogarty had got a finder's fee from him.
Mr Desmond O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, referred to a statement the journalist made to the tribunal about conversations he had had with Mr Bailey.
Mr Connolly's statement said Mr Bailey claimed he gave Mr Gogarty a cheque for £50,000 in 1989 in order to get his assistance for Mr Bailey's effort to purchase a JMSE-owned property in Baggot Street.
Mr O'Neill asked if he said that to Mr Connolly. Mr Bailey said he did.
Asked if the content was true, Mr Bailey said: "No."
Mr O'Neill asked why he told the journalist an untruth. Mr Bailey replied that Mr Connolly was persistently asking him questions and that was one answer he gave which was an untruth.
Counsel said so his response to someone who persistently asked him questions was to lie? Mr Bailey said it was not.
"I'm telling you that I told Frank Connolly that that's what I did and I'm saying under oath that that was not true," he said.
Mr O'Neill asked why it suited him to tell an untruth.
"Because I didn't want to tell him that Mr Gogarty had got a finder's fee off me," Mr Bailey replied. Mr O'Neill said the £50,000 cheque was a matter raised by Mr Connolly.
Did Mr Connolly tell him Mr Gogarty was telling a particular version of events? Mr Bailey said he did not recall what was said.
Counsel asked if when he told Mr Connolly that the payment was to do with Baggot Street, Mr Connolly later came back to him and told him that the sale took place in late 1989, whereas his cheque was dated September 1990.
Mr Bailey said Mr Connolly did and he had told him he gave Mr Gogarty the cheque and postdated it for September 1990. Asked if that was untrue as well, Mr Bailey said he did post-date the cheque in November 1989.
Mr O'Neill said, so in the context of it being a cheque in connection with the acquisition of property in Baggot Street, it was totally false to suggest it was a post-dated cheque for that purpose?
Mr Bailey said that was correct.
Asked why he did not tell Mr Connolly the truth or refuse to answer, Mr Bailey said that was what he had told him.
The witness was also asked why he had told Mr Connolly that he was not in the room when Mr Gogarty handed money over to Mr Burke.
Mr Bailey said that was inaccurate as he was in the room. He may have told Mr Connolly that.
Asked why he told him that if it was untrue, Mr Bailey said he did not know.