The Dublin West TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, must give evidence about his financial affairs in public before the Flood tribunal, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Lawlor had sought to appear in private before the tribunal. If questioned in public, he claimed, he could give answers that would adversely affect the good names of other persons not before the tribunal at this stage.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, giving the decision of the five-judge court, said the tribunal chairman was entitled to decide that Mr Lawlor give evidence in public. The court rejected Mr Lawlor's appeal against the High Court's order upholding the tribunal's decision.
The court gave its judgment yesterday at the end of legal submissions by Mr John Rogers SC, for Mr Lawlor. Mr Justice Keanesaid they did not require to hear arguments from Mr Frank Clarke SC for the tribunal.
The Chief Justice said a tribunal, in setting about the task entrusted to it by the Oireacthas would, of necessity, hear some matters in private as it assembled evidence. Certain aspects might be conducted in private for the obvious reason that it might otherwise lead to unsubstantiated or irrelevant allegations being given widespread currency.
A tribunal would at some stage come to a decision that the evidence of particular persons be heard in public and that was the stage matters had reached in Mr Lawlor's case.
The Chief Justice said Mr Rogers had, more than once, said that his client was being required to attend "on the blind", not knowing what allegations were being made against him. It had to be borne in mind that the tribunal had written to Mr Lawlor on May 19th setting out in detail a number of matters which were quite plainly within the tribunal's terms of reference.
The tribunal had raised questions about the propriety of certain activities in relation to planning matters in the Dublin area and matters with which, according to information coming to the tribunal, Mr Lawlor might be concerned.
The tribunal had had correspondence with Mr Lawlor's solicitors regarding the extent of the inquiry and had reached a decision that these were matters which required to be treated in public. The tribunal had made the order for Mr Lawlor to appear in public, and the order had been given effect by the High Court.
Mr Justice Keane said the legislature and courts, when interpreting legislation, must accord a significant measure of discretion to a tribunal about the manner in which it conducted proceedings. A tribunal must observe the constitutional rights of all persons appearing before it.
Mr Rogers had said his client was "an accused man" who was not being told what he did wrong. If the tribunal was going to lead evidence against Mr Lawlor in public, then he and his lawyers should have notice of that in advance.
Mr Rogers in his submissions referred to letters sent by the tribunal to Mr Lawlor on May 19th claiming it received information which suggested Mr Lawlor was, for a period of about 10 months from May 1988, receiving £3,500 a month from Arlington Securities through Mr Thomas Gilmartin and that in 1991 he had received payments from Mr Frank Dunlop in connection with Mr Lawlor's support for the rezoning of lands at Quarryvale.