Even if Liam Lawlor's three-month sentence is ruled to be no longer valid, he might be landed with a new, even longer sentence, writes Paul Cullen.
You need a strong nerve and an awful lot of time to tussle with Liam Lawlor. Not for the first time, the Dublin West TD has launched a legal challenge just when the critics had all but consigned him to prison for a third time.
This column referred yesterday to Mr Lawlor's marathon-running exploits in his earlier days, but it forgot to add that his stamina is as strong as ever.
A year ago when he was first threatened with imprisonment, Mr Lawlor counter-attacked with gusto. He sought to have Mr Justice Smyth removed from the case because of the judge's earlier work as a barrister for a property company.
That challenge failed, but now Mr Lawlor is seeking once again to have his case heard all over again by another judge.
Some will regard the move as further proof that the TD's main aim in his endless legal battles with the Flood tribunal is to drag out matters for as long as possible. Finally, either the tribunal will give up or the public will tune out with boredom, the theory goes.
Yet the strategy is a risky one. Mr Lawlor's legal team contends that the original three-month sentence imposed on him a year ago no longer has effect, because the deadline set for its imposition passed last November.
He has served two weeks of this sentence but the rest was suspended. But if Mr Justice Smyth accepts this argument, he may feel free to impose an even greater sentence than three months, without feeling the need to have the case reheard.
Mr Lawlor would probably appeal such a decision to the Supreme Court, leading to yet further delays.
As he has submitted further affidavits since he was first jailed, he may feel that he is now in a stronger position to argue that he has complied with the tribunal.
The question lingers as to why he chooses, or dares, to take on the relentless power of the tribunal. Why put himself through this misery for years to come, by dragging matters out and contesting its decisions?
Logic, the facts, the media and his erstwhile political colleagues are all lined up against him, yet Mr Lawlor sees himself as David battling bravely against a slew of Goliaths.
You can see in his demeanour that he wants try his luck before the electorate in the next election, though the polls, his family and Mr Justice Smyth may yet have an influence on what he eventually decides.
Finally, the question again occurs as to how Mr Lawlor is funding his legal campaign. Already, he faces a €500,000 bill for the tribunal's costs, before he even begins to pay his own lawyers. Mr Lawlor is clearly wealthy, much wealthier than we first imagined.
But is he that wealthy?