People named by Mr James Gogarty in an affidavit concerning allegations of planning corruption are expected to seek to have his evidence to the Planning Tribunal postponed. It had been scheduled for next month. The chairman and sole member of the tribunal, Mr Justice Flood, announced yesterday that he intended to begin public sittings on November 16th to hear Mr Gogarty's evidence to allow him to be cross-examined and to hear any rebuttal evidence there may be.
Counsel for Mr Michael Bailey and Mr Joseph Murphy snr, two of those who are believed to feature in an affidavit sworn by Mr Gogarty earlier this month, indicated that they may apply to the tribunal to have Mr Gogarty's evidence delayed.
Media reports of allegations made by Mr Gogarty, a former senior executive with Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering, were central to the events that led to the resignation from the Dail last year of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Ray Burke. They also led to the establishment of the tribunal.
Mr Justice Flood said he intended to hear Mr Gogarty's evidence next month because of his age - he is 81 - and the seriousness of his allegations. The tribunal is currently conducting private investigations and was not expected to begin hearing evidence in public until next year.
Mr Garret Cooney SC, representing Mr Murphy, told Mr Justice Flood yesterday that Mr Gogarty's affidavit contained 93 paragraphs and a number of exhibits - "a huge mass of material".
Mr Cooney said he "may have an application to make" about fixing of the hearing date.
Counsel for Mr Bailey said he wished to reserve his client's position in relation to the date. He needed time to digest Mr Gogarty's evidence. Mr Gogarty's affidavit was given to representatives of Mr Bailey and Mr Murphy late on Monday.
Mr Justice Flood said he noted what both men had said, and asked them to notify the tribunal registrar if they decided to apply for an adjournment. Mr Justice Flood said that certain persons and entities had been "less than wholehearted in their co-operation with the tribunal". A small number "may be seeking to avoid or delay the disclosure of what the tribunal considers to be relevant documentation and information", he said.
He said this would not divert the tribunal from its task, "but it does have a bearing on the tribunal's view, at this time, as to the extent to which this inquiry is likely to proceed".
In the event that the tribunal concluded that an individual or entity had failed to co-operate fully and expeditiously, the tribunal would report that to the Oireachtas, he said.
Mr Justice Flood made his comments at a sitting to explain the tribunal's terms of reference. He also outlined procedures to be adopted by the tribunal. The Supreme Court ruled in July that tribunals of inquiry should explain their interpretation of their terms of reference in public at an early date. Mr Justice Flood did so yesterday, he said, by seeking "to apply the ordinary and natural meaning of words to the wording of the terms of reference". He also outlined his interpretation of particular words which he said had specific technical or statutory meanings.
The tribunal is investigating the planning history of certain lands in north county Dublin, including whether they were the subject of rezoning motions or planning permission applications; what public representatives proposed or supported such applications; whether these public representatives received any money from persons or companies who had beneficial ownership of the lands; what public officials considered such applications or made recommendations or decisions concerning them; whether these public officials received any money from Mr James Gogarty or Mr Michael Bailey; and whether any relevant public representatives or officials were influenced by the receipt of any such money.
Mr Justice Flood said the tribunal "had considerable success in assembling evidence in relation to particular matters into which it is required by its terms of reference to investigate". It had not yet "exhausted its endeavours in seeking to establish the existence of evidence that may be relevant to certain other matters pertinent to this inquiry. The tribunal intends to make a further public statement in relation to the extent to which aspects of this inquiry are likely to be pursued at a future public sitting."