THE FLOOD TRIBUNAL: The Flood tribunal has again rejected complaints that it is being unfair to former Fine Gael senator Mr Liam Cosgrave.
Rejecting a submission by Mr Cosgrave's legal team before the start of the politician's evidence yesterday, Mr Justice Flood accused the lawyers of "an unwarranted attempt to manage or control the conduct of the tribunal's business".
In their submission, Mr Cosgrave's lawyers claimed there was a "disturbing pattern" in which witnesses who were helpful to their client were not being listed as witnesses. They suggested the tribunal was more focused on evidence which supported Mr Frank Dunlop and undermined the county councillors Mr Dunlop allegedly bribed.
However, Mr Justice Flood "rejected and strongly resented" this suggestion. The tribunal had not yet heard the evidence of the councillors.
"It is not a matter for any witness or any party to purport to dictate to the tribunal the manner in which it conducts its business, including the order in which it decides to call witnesses."
Mr David Burke, barrister, for Mr Cosgrave, had called on the tribunal to "assuage our fears" by answering 14 questions about the evidence in relation to Mr Cosgrave and Mr Dunlop.
However, Mr Colm Allen SC, for Mr Dunlop, accused Mr Burke of a "pre-emptive strike" by dealing with matters which should properly be answered by Mr Cosgrave in the witness box. Mr Cosgrave was being "buttressed" by his legal team.
Tribunal lawyers rejected Mr Burke's submission. Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, described it as a "thinly-disguised attack on the integrity of the tribunal legal team and the tribunal". He "absolutely and utterly rejected it".
Mr Burke acknowledged there had been tension between the tribunal and Mr Cosgrave's legal team until the latter withdrew several weeks ago. This was a cause of regret. He had hoped the intervening break would "serve as a healing process" but, unfortunately, a number of developments had occurred which caused him great concern.
He asked why some witnesses favourable to Mr Cosgrave's case were not being called.
These included councillors who deny Mr Dunlop's claim that Mr Cosgrave canvassed them to support rezoning motions, and work colleagues who would contradict evidence of Mr Dunlop relating to an alleged payment of £5,000 in December 1997.
Mr Burke also asked why Mr Cosgrave, who was scheduled to go last among the politicians figuring in Mr Dunlop's allegations, had then been rescheduled to go first. The tribunal had sent his client a new folder of financial records just two days ago. "There was no conceivable possibility that these statements could be considered in a proper and adequate manner prior to the commencement of his evidence."
However, Mr Justice Flood expressed surprise at Mr Cosgrave's dissatisfaction given that his counsel had emphasised "over and over again" his client's anxiety to give evidence "at the earliest opportunity".
