Legal analysis: The crime of corruption relating to events of some years ago is a very difficult one to prove, writes Carol Coulter.
Under the law in force up to 1999, it is not enough to show that a person paid money to a public official and that an act, beneficial to the donor, was then done by the recipient of the money.
It must be proved that the person both received and accepted the money specifically "as an inducement to or an award for doing or forbearing to do anything" in respect of a specified benefit.
This has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It places a very high burden of proof on the prosecution, which has to prove not only that the money changed hands but that the donor intended it as an inducement and that the recipient accepted it as such, then carried out a specified act as a result.
The law was changed in 1999, so that the definition of corruption now includes a presumption of corruption if an official takes money.
But that was not the state of the law at the time Mr Redmond was alleged to have taken money from Mr Fassnidge or that most of the events being investigated by tribunals took place.
Small wonder, therefore, that the tribunals have been full of people acknowledging that they received "political donations" of sometimes vast sums and that they were indeed in positions of power and influence at the time they received them and even in a position to help the person who handed over the money. But there was no connection between all these facts, they insist, no favours were asked or granted.
Even if a tribunal finds that a person gave or received corrupt payments, this has little bearing on a subsequent criminal prosecution. "Nothing in a tribunal report in itself proves anything," the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr James Hamilton, told The Irish Times in an interview earlier this year. "There is a statutory provision that any admissions people make cannot be used in a prosecution.
"All the DPP can do is ask the gardaí to investigate. When the gardaí go out to the person he can say, 'my solicitor has advised me to say nothing'.
"There is a different burden of proof in a criminal case. A tribunal can hear two versions and prefer one over the other without any corroboration, but the bar in a criminal trial is 'beyond reasonable doubt'."
The charges against Mr Redmond were that between June 1st and June 25th, 1987, he received the specific sum of £10,000 from Mr Fassnidge in relation to the sale of a right of way in Palmerstown, Co Dublin.
Mr Fassnidge claimed he had withdrawn this sum from his bank and handed it over in a brown envelope to Mr Redmond on or about June 7th. After his conviction, evidence emerged that no such withdrawal was made from Mr Fassnidge's bank in or around this date.
The Court of Criminal Appeal considered that this so undermined his credibility as a witness that, had it been put to the jury, it could have led to a different outcome to the trial.
The Court of Criminal Appeal also commented: "It would be fair to say that an unattractive picture emerges of the events which led to the grant of the right of way to Mr Fassnidge by Dublin County Council. It was fully established in evidence that Mr Fassnidge made an open and legal payment of £10,000 by cheque to the county council in respect of the right of way. The applicant himself in his statement of 12st April, 1999, admitted that he had received £5,000 in cash from Brendan Fassnidge in connection with the right of way, although he claimed that this was an unsolicited payment.
"In short, on the general evidence the jury could well have concluded that neither the applicant nor Mr Fassnidge were persons of any great merit and that there were a number of highly questionable aspects to the transaction regarding the right of way."
However, the court concluded, Mr Redmond was charged with very specific offences and one element of those offences, the receipt of £10,000, was cast into doubt, so the conviction was unsafe.