Some of the strongest language used by any party at the Flood tribunal was directed against the solicitor representing Mr James Gogarty, Mr Gerard Sheedy, by Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the Murphy group, yesterday.
However, having first described Mr Sheedy's professional conduct as "fast", his testimony as having "some gall" and claiming that Mr Sheedy was "in a conspiracy" with Mr Gogarty, Mr Cooney later acknowledged that a central pillar of his cross-examination was an error.
In cross-examining Mr Sheedy, Mr Cooney had sought to establish that Mr Sheedy had acted improperly in 1989 when he witnessed an agreement between Mr Gogarty and the Murphy group on the payment of commission to Mr Gogarty on money recouped from the ESB after the building of the Moneypoint generating plant.
A key line in the agreement, dated October 3rd, 1989, said the "current offer in settlement (from the ESB) is £130,000".
In fact, Mr Sheedy acknowledged yesterday that when the agreement was signed he knew that Mr Gogarty had agreed a figure of £560,000 plus VAT with the ESB.
This was evidence, Mr Cooney claimed, that Mr Sheedy was "in some form of conspiracy" with Mr Gogarty to cheat his client.
Mr Sheedy said the agreement had been made in August of that year, before the figure of £560,000 was agreed, but the formality of signing did not take place until October. He said all parties knew the ESB offer would rise and in fact the agreement required Mr Gogarty to ensure that it did. He invited Mr Cooney to make the accusation of a conspiracy outside the tribunal.
Concluding his questioning of Mr Sheedy, Mr Cooney went on to suggest that Mr Sheedy's evidence had been fabricated. Following protests from Mr Justice Flood about the slur on Mr Sheedy's reputation, Mr Cooney said that he felt he had given fair reason for the accusations.
However, before the tribunal adjourned for lunch, Mr Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Gogarty, revealed that in fact Mr Sheedy had included reference to the initialled letter which was at the heart of Mr Cooney's questioning in the affidavits drawn up for Mr Gogarty. Mr Cooney, who appeared in some confusion, responded that he would look at the papers over lunch and if necessary would take the appropriate action after lunch. When the tribunal resumed, Mr Cooney expressed his acceptance that one of the affidavits did in fact make reference to the material as suggested by Mr Callanan and he said he "apologised for that mistake".
