MAHON TRIBUNAL:CORK DEVELOPER Owen O'Callaghan has said an allegation that he discussed a £40,000 payment to the late Liam Lawlor with lobbyist Frank Dunlop in 1991 was "complete and utter rubbish".
Both Luton-based developer Tom Gilmartin and Mr Dunlop had told the Mahon tribunal the discussion did take place, though Mr Dunlop later said Mr O‘Callaghan was not present at the time.
Mr O’Callaghan acknowledged that if he had heard that discussion, he would have assumed it was “improper”.
Counsel for the tribunal Patricia Dillon SC said Mr Gilmartin told the tribunal the discussion took place after a meeting in Mr Dunlop’s office in April 1991, which the four men attended. He said he didn’t want Mr Dunlop to become involved in lobbying for the Quarryvale development and he was angry and walked out.
Mr O’Callaghan followed him and Mr Dunlop then arrived and drove them to AIB headquarters in Ballsbridge.
Mr Gilmartin said as he got out of the car, he overheard Mr Dunlop complaining that Mr Lawlor had “cut up rough” in the office and he nearly had to call gardaí, and he had said he agreed to pay Mr Lawlor £40,000.
“Is there an iota of truth in any of that?” Ms Dillon asked.
“Not one iota of truth, complete and utter rubbish, chairman, rubbish!” Mr O’Callaghan said.
Tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon asked Mr O’Callaghan if he would have assumed the payment was improper if he had heard the discussion. “If I’d have heard that, of course I would, of course I would,” Mr O’Callaghan said.
Ms Dillon said Mr Gilmartin had referred to the payment as early as 1998 and 1999, before Mr Dunlop had made his “Road to Damascus conversion”and gave what he called his first day of truthful evidence, on April 19th, 2000. He had also linked the payment to a meeting at his office in April 1991. Ms Dillon acknowledged that Mr Dunlop had altered his evidence in 2007, when he said Mr O’Callaghan was not present.
Mr O’Callaghan accepted it was unlikely that Mr Dunlop and Mr Gilmartin had colluded in their evidence, as they were “fairly implacable opponents”.
Ms Dillon asked how they could both acquire the same wrong information. “I don’t know . . . but Mr Gilmartin would tell lies about it, of course, which is what has always happened . . . and Mr Dunlop changed his evidence,” Mr O’Callaghan said.
“Is there any possibility . . . Mr Lawlor sought money from yourself and Mr Dunlop and you had a discussion about paying corrupt money to Mr Lawlor?” Ms Dillon asked.
“Not at all, that is my evidence, not at all,” Mr O’Callaghan said.
John Deane, business partner to Mr O’Callaghan, said he did not consider negotiating reduced fees with Mr Dunlop for his services on the Quarryvale project because he did not get on with him.
He said the first time they met, Mr Dunlop explained how the planning process worked and told Mr O’Callaghan he would need to spend two or three days a week in Dublin. “I saw this taking up a monumental amount of Mr O’Callaghan’s time,” he said.
“I made the rather naive remark of why don’t they speak to the three party whips and if the three party whips agreed, surely they’d bring their respective parties along with them . . . Mr Dunlop told me in no uncertain fashion that I knew nothing about politics and the best thing I could do was to go back to Cork and stay there . . . After that I thought it was best to keep away from Mr Dunlop.”
