The chairman of the Moriarty tribunal has decided to compel Mr Charles Haughey to continue giving evidence.
Mr Justice Moriarty announced his decision during a short sitting of the tribunal yesterday afternoon and after being urged by Mr Haughey's counsel not to do so.
Mr Haughey is to be examined in private in Dublin Castle before the chairman. He is also to be asked to answer written questionnaires which will later be affirmed and made part of his evidence.
The chairman met one of Mr Haughey's doctors, Mr Peter McLean, consultant urologist, yesterday morning, having been requested to do so.
Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for Mr Haughey, said it was clear from the transcript of the meeting that Mr McLean's advice was that his client should not be requested to attend further sittings.
However Mr Justice Moriarty said he did not propose to defer the matter any further. It was "clear time is by no means an unimportant consideration", he said.
Having considered all the reports given and representations made; having along with the tribunal's legal team met Mr McLean; having taken advice from his legal team; and having regard to his own observations of Mr Haughey as a witness earlier in the year, the chairman concluded Mr Haughey should give evidence.
Mr Justice Moriarty said the tribunal believed the disabilities from which Mr Haughey suffered could be mitigated by his being examined on oath in private.
This would alleviate "any significant risk" of exacerbating Mr Haughey's condition. It would also "ensure his examination be conducted in circumstances which will afford him the best opportunity of recalling and ordering facts".
Mr Haughey is to be examined in a private room in Dublin Castle for one hour a day, four days a week, with accommodation available for his legal advisers and for a stenographer. The transcripts will be made available when the chairman so directs. Appearing in private would protect Mr Haughey from the stress involved in exposure to daily media comment.
Mr Justice Moriarty said he was mindful that in addition to fair procedure Mr Haughey should be "enabled to give the best possible account of himself in relation to all or any matters which could give rise to findings critical of him".
He said that making the decision was not a pleasant or easy exercise of jurisdiction and he was not neglecting the medical or humanitarian issues involved.
In examining Mr Haughey the tribunal will prioritise issues of greatest importance to the tribunal's terms of reference and those which most clearly involve "a possibility of findings adverse to Mr Haughey".
Mr Justice Moriarty said he would monitor daily the examination of Mr Haughey.
