Mahon tribunal: The Mahon tribunal has asked two former staff to provide details of a secret conversation they had with Frank Dunlop about allegations of corruption in the award of urban tax renewal incentives.
Tribunal lawyers have written to their former colleagues, barristers John Gallagher and Pat Hanratty, seeking information about the off-the-record conversation they had with Mr Dunlop during a private interview in 2000.
This follows a request from lawyers for the late Fine Gael councillor Tom Hand, who suggested that Mr Dunlop was protecting senior political figures by refusing to talk on the record about alleged corruption in this area.
David Burke, barrister, for Mr Hand's estate, said Mr Dunlop's interview with the tribunal lawyers was a private session which he believed would be kept under wraps forever. (A subsequent court decision forced its disclosure to interested parties.) Notwithstanding this, he had asked to go off the record.
"What was so sensitive that it had to be off the record?" he asked. What did Mr Dunlop know about corrupt practices with regard to tax designations? After Mr Dunlop replied that he couldn't remember the content of his off-the-record discussions, Judge Alan Mahon said the tribunal would ask the lawyers involved.
Mr Burke claimed the witness was sacrificing "small fry" county councillors to protect bigger political fish from his allegations of planning corruption.
He questioned whether Mr Dunlop's knowledge of corruption was limited to councillors.
"The answer empathically and irrefutably is no," Mr Dunlop replied. "I'm not protecting anybody."
Asked if he was aware of any corruption involving tax designations, Mr Dunlop replied: "Directly, no."
Asked if he had indirect knowledge, he replied: "One doesn't live in an unreal world."
Earlier, Mr Burke pointed out that Mr Dunlop had underestimated his fees in the Ballycullen module by £44,000.
In the present module, concerning the rezoning of lands at Lissenhall, Swords, he underestimated them by over £20,000.
A pattern was developing whereby he was minimising the amount of money coming in and maximising the amount of money going out on payments to councillors.
"I think this is a damage limitation strategy on your behalf, Mr Dunlop, to keep back the knowledge from the Revenue Commissioners about the full extent of the money you are getting in."
Mr Dunlop said he had declared the money he got to the Revenue Commissioners. In addition, he had given the tribunal the documentation which showed he received higher fees than he had initially stated.
He agreed with Colm Ó hÓisíSC, for Rayband Ltd, the owners of the Lissenhall land, that he had given inaccurate information about the fees he got from the company.
Mr Burke asked why the witness had been so reckless as to tell the owners of the Lissenhall land, who were complete strangers, that he would have to pay councillors to get the land rezoned.
Mr Dunlop said the question of paying councillors had been raised by the other side. They were acknowledging what happened at the council and there was no point in denying it. They were men of the world.
Mr Burke pointed out that the rezoning motion had passed by 49 votes to 15, so Mr Dunlop could have achieved his objective without paying councillors. He could have kept the money.
