Mr Frank Dunlop has revealed for the first time why he lied to the Flood tribunal when he first gave evidence almost three years ago, writes Paul Cullen.
The lobbyist and former government press secretary said he originally believed the tribunal would deal only with one issue (Ray Burke) and would be quickly wrapped up and forgotten about. If he did have to give evidence, he had agreed with councillors that all the payments he had made to them would be described as legitimate political donations.
Judge Alan Mahon of the tribunal responded to Mr Dunlop's revelation by asking him to write down the names of councillors with whom he had discussed his evidence in advance of appearing at the tribunal.
He was also asked to write the names of other people, including clients and journalists, with whom he had had discussions. Mr Dunlop spent 30 minutes completing these lists over lunchtime yesterday and was later asked to submit a statement based on the lists by next Monday.
When Mr Dunlop was called to the tribunal in April 2000, he was unable to explain a long-concealed bank account he had used to make payments to county councillors. Under pressure from tribunal lawyers, he started to identify politicians he bribed. He has continued to co-operate with the tribunal ever since.
Yesterday Mr Dunlop said it was his decision alone to mislead the tribunal. However, immediately before he gave evidence in 2000, he did have discussions with one individual. On request, he provided the name of this person to the tribunal.
He told Mr Seamus Ó Tuathail SC, for Senator Don Lydon, that at the time the tribunal was established the councillors he was dealing with felt that the matters under investigation would be dealt with relatively quickly. It was believed the tribunal had been established because of political pressure and would deal with one issue. "It would all be wrapped up in a nice neat ribbon and forgotten about."
He pointed out that, notwithstanding the fact that people had suspicions about what had gone on in Dublin County Council, no one had ever proved anything.
"No one had ever arrived at a situation where someone would say they had done X and Y," he said.
Mr Dunlop said that everyone was "in denial". People were wondering who the chairman, Mr Justice Flood, was, where he came from and what his decisions had been on the bench.
He discussed the matter with certain councillors, and it was agreed that "if it ever came to it, we would all say they were political contributions". Although everyone knew he was involved and that there had been substantial exchanges of money on the council, some people found it "convenient" to use election times as an opportunity to "garner" money from him.
Mr Dunlop said the situation changed dramatically when the tribunal called him to give evidence after he had declined to make a statement. Tribunal counsel, Mr Pat Hanratty SC, questioned him about his account in AIB in Rathfarnham, "for which there palpably was no explanation".
Mr Dunlop originally concealed the account from the tribunal, before revealing its existence in February 2000, three months before he was called to give evidence. As Mr Hanratty's questioning proceeded on that day in April 2000, it was "palpably obvious that matters were not as they appeared". The chairman, for example, pointed out that the account had no chequebook.
"I then had a meeting with my lawyers, and the rest is history."