An apparent conflict of evidence between a statement to the Flood tribunal by Mr Gabriel Grehan, former JMSE director, and a record by tribunal lawyers of what he told them, was effectively resolved by his later testimony in the witness box last May, the chairman stated yesterday.
In a ruling, Mr Justice Flood said Mr Grehan's evidence should resume. He had heard legal submissions that he should not take further evidence to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the apparent conflict.
Mr Grehan had told the tribunal in the witness box in May that he had "inadvertently" given tribunal lawyers the wrong date in relation to when he first knew, according to his understanding, of a JMSE transaction of £30,000.
Mr Grehan's lawyer, Mr Denis McCullough SC, said the crux of the conflict was that in a record taken by tribunal lawyers of a meeting with Mr Grehan on November 30th, 1998, it was noted that he had told them that he acquired knowledge of certain matters in 1989.
However, in a written outline of his evidence provided by Mr Grehan, and drawn up by his solicitor, to the tribunal on January 11th, 1999, he had said that he had acquired the knowledge in 1996.
The matter referred to was when Mr Grehan first knew, according to his understanding, that £30,000 had left the JMSE account and a similar amount had been lodged to the company account shortly afterwards.
Mr McCullough said that either way, Mr Grehan did not have first-hand knowledge and it was based in rumour and hearsay.
Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, said that his colleague Mr Pat Hanratty SC, had taken notes from the meeting with Mr Grehan and then destroyed them after he had typed up a memo. A contemporaneous note was also made by Mr Desmond O'Neill SC.
Mr Justice Flood in his ruling recapped that on May 13th, Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the Murphy parties, made serious allegations against Mr Hanratty and Mr O'Neill who were then called to the witness box - an "exceptional course". He then proceeded to hear evidence from Mr Grehan.
"However, it appears to me, as submitted by counsel to the tribunal, Mr Gallagher, that the evidence of Mr Grehan himself on this point has effectively resolved this issue," the chairman said.
In his evidence in the witness box in May, Mr Grehan had stated that he might have got the 1989 date incorrect.
Asked at that time if he accepted that he did, in fact, tell the tribunal lawyers that he said 1989, Mr Grehan had replied: "Yes, and I was inadvertently incorrect in saying that."
He later said: "The 1989 was inadvertently incorrect." He accepted that he had told the tribunal lawyers that it was 1989.
The chairman said that there was correspondence between Mr Grehan's solicitors and the tribunal, after the tribunal received the outline of Mr Grehan's evidence, but nowhere in that correspondence was it stated that his reference to 1989 was "inadvertently incorrect".
In any event, in the light of the evidence which Mr Grehan gave, it was unnecessary to proceed with any further inquiry into the conflict.
Earlier during submissions, the chairman referred to Dr Mary Grehan, Mr Grehan's wife, who may give evidence.
Mr Justice Flood said he had acted for Dr Grehan against the Department of Health about 10 or 12 years ago. To that extent, he knew Dr Grehan but it was water under many bridges.