It is now unlikely that Mr Charles Haughey will go on trial for obstructing the McCracken tribunal before October next, if at all. He was first charged in the Dublin District Court almost two years ago, in July 1998.
The charges were based on two letters he wrote the tribunal.
The first, on March 7th, 1997, stated that he did not receive money from Mr Ben Dunne. On July 9th he wrote again to the tribunal accepting that he did receive £1.3 million from Mr Dunne, and on the 15th of that month he wrote acknowledging that he had received a further £200,000.
It took 15 months for the case to get from the Dublin District Court to the Circuit Criminal Court, and Mr Haughey was arraigned there on October 14th 1999, before Judge Kevin Haugh. Circuit Court cases are heard by a jury and the penalties, on conviction on these charges, are a possible £10,000 fine or two years' imprisonment, or both.
The case has been dogged by legal challenges. Last December Mr Haughey's lawyers applied to have the trial adjourned until the Moriarty tribunal was over, claiming that it was generating adverse publicity.
That application failed, but Judge Haugh was critical of some media coverage of the tribunal and Mr Haughey. He noted the difficulties Mr Haughey might face if he had to deal with the trial and the Moriarty tribunal at the same time, and said a further application would be considered if this arose.
He also said that consideration should be given to what additional safeguards should be made "over and above the norm" to ensure he had a fair trial.
This resulted in his drawing up a questionnaire for potential jurors, seeking to establish if they had any relationship with Mr Haughey, Mr Dunne, any of their companies, or other potential witnesses. The Director of Public Prosecutions successfully challenged this in the High Court. However, that in turn caused further delay.
In the meantime the Moriarty tribunal continued with public hearings in which it was stated that Mr Haughey received £8.5 million from various businessmen, and had asked them and others to invest in his sons' businesses. It decided to call evidence relating to donations from Mr Dunne to Mr Haughey.
In addition, the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, has commented on these revelations, stating that Mr Haughey should be convicted and imprisoned. Since then she has said she was referring to the revelations at the Moriarty tribunal.
So when the case came up for mention yesterday lawyers for Mr Haughey again sought to have the whole indictment struck out or, failing that, either a permanent or temporary stay on the proceedings. As well as citing the Tanaiste's comments, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC yesterday mentioned further media comment he considered prejudicial.
In allowing the motion to be heard, Judge Haugh accepted that "things have changed" since his decision on a similar application last December, and that it was appropriate for him to consider these new issues. It is expected that this will take about five days.
No one can predict the outcome but, as has been said during previous challenges, what Mr Haughey is being charged with is obstructing the McCracken tribunal and this will involve a close examination of documents. He is not being charged with any offence that might arise out of the revelations emerging at the Moriarty tribunal.