The Planning Tribunal has agreed at the High Court to withdraw findings of corruption and all other adverse findings made against former assistant Dublin City and County Manager George Redmond in its Third Interim Report of 2004. A determination Mr Redmond was not entitled to costs has also been withdrawn.
The withdrawal is part of a settlement of Mr Redmond’s action against the tribunal announced at the High Court yesterday to Mr Justice Paul Gilligan.
In his action initiated in 2005 aimed at overturning the adverse findings, Mr Redmond claimed those findings were reached as a result of a public investigation by the tribunal which breached his rights to his good name, due process, constitutional justice and fair procedures.
His counsel Hugh Hartnett said material which had come to light in 2010 would have been of “huge significance” in the cross examination of key witness James Gogarty before the tribunal and in the assessment of his reliability as a witness.
Outside court, Mr Redmond (90) said he was relieved it was over. “It has been going on a long time and it has had a huge effect on my life and the life of my family,” he said. The law had worked for him in the end, he added.
His solicitor Keith Walsh said Mr Redmond was very happy to have seen this day. Mr Redmond now wished to enjoy the rest of his retirement in peace and asked to have his privacy and that of his family respected, Mr Walsh added.
Mr Redmond had been separately convicted of corruption in 2003 and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment following a majority jury verdict. That conviction was overturned on appeal as unsafe and he was released after six months. He was retried in 2008 on two separate corruption charges but the jury failed to reach a verdict on the first count and he was acquitted on the second.
Yesterday, Mr Hartnett said his client’s High Court action could be settled in its entirety on foot of agreed orders quashing the adverse findings against Mr Redmond in the 2004 Third Interim Report, including of corruption and of hindering and obstructing the tribunal. The judge made those orders, struck out the action and awarded Mr Redmond his legal costs.
The settlement requires the Tribunal to take appropriate steps to remove the quashed findings from circulation, including writing to all local authorities advising them of the making of the orders and requesting them to remove the Third Interim Report from any public library unless it has been amended or redacted. The quashing of the findings is also to be reported to the Clerk of the Dáil.
The Tribunal must also ensure the report is only available on any website controlled by it with the appropriate amendments and reasonable steps be taken to ensure entries on the Wikipedia website relating to Mr Redmond and the Gogarty Module are updated to reflect the findings have been quashed.
Patricia Dillon SC, for the Tribunal, said the 2004 Third Interim Report would be taken down from the Tribunal website and only put back up in its redacted form.
Mr Redmond initiated his action in 2005 and the High Court accepted the Tribunal’s arguments it was prejudiced due to inordinate and inexcusable delay in advancing it. He appealed to the Supreme Court while the Tribunal cross-appealed other aspects of that High Court decision allowing Mr Redmond continue with part of his action related to findings he hindered and obstructed it and consequently was not entitled to costs before the Tribunal.
When the matter was before the Supreme Court last July, the judges raised several issues arising from the 2010 Supreme Court finding in proceedings taken against the Tribunal by Joseph Murphy Structural Engineers (JMSE).
In the JMSE case, the Supreme Court found, and the tribunal conceded, important material described by one of the judges as “potentially explosive” going to the credibility of the Tribunal’s key prosecution witness, the late James Gogarty, was wrongly withheld by the Tribunal. The material included allegations made by Mr Gogarty, who died in 2005, against a politician and a law officer, it was stated.
In light of the Tribunal having conceded in the JMSE case the material should not have been withheld, the Supreme Court had asked the Tribunal if it proposed to defend Mr Redmond’s main action. The court was ultimately told the Tribunal was not opposing Mr Redmond’s appeal, would pay his costs in the High and Supreme Courts in that regard and was also withdrawing its own cross-appeal.
