Delivering his 45-minute judgment in the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Smyth said no one wished for "a confessional or police state" or unwarranted inquiries into people's private affairs, but on occasion a balance had to be held between public and private rights and entitlements.
He said the conditions for suspending the balance of Mr Lawlor's sentence in January had not been met. He accepted Mr Lawlor had made affidavits and supplied 157 folders of documents since then, but it was the quality of the discovery made that was as important, and perhaps more important in some matters, as the quantity.
Credit must be given to Mr Lawlor for what he had done since January, but the task should have been obvious to him three years ago and would have to be faced sooner or later.
The judge said he would leave to the tribunal the task of dealing with the material as it now existed, supplemented by the further affidavits of discovery he would direct. If it meant Mr Lawlor had to be recalled more than once, so be it.
If the tribunal still insisted there was non-compliance, it would be open to the chairman to take such course as he considered appropriate or apply to the court regarding any new or fresh contempt if such should arise.
Mr Justice Smyth said the purpose of contempt-of-court rules was to ensure the effective administration of justice. The law did not exist to protect the personal dignity of the judiciary. There had been only partial compliance with the earlier order, and he took a serious view of that against the background of the litigation.
It would be unfair to impose the whole of the balance of the three-month sentence because there was still a period, with further facility from the court, during which it was possible further compliance would be comple ted. Mr Lawlor had undertaken considerable work in an attempt at compliance.
However, the non-compliance had been of a serious character. In the judge's opinion, several weeks in prison should follow such non-compliance. However, mindful that what might be perceived as a "draconian" power ought not to be exercised too prodigally, which would or could be considered as inconsistent with the dictates of the Constitution, he had determined that a lesser period, in addition to a fine, was the appropriate sanction.
Mr Justice Smyth referred to several concerns of the tribunal which had been referred to in the affidavits. He also quoted from various passages of Mr Lawlor's replying affidavits.
Whatever might be said of oversights or omissions concerning hire-purchase arrangements for vehicles for family use, the same could not be said to apply to transactions in respect of which substantial sums of money were involved or in respect of which Mr Lawlor hoped to derive benefit and upon which, fortuitously, the tribunal had some documents.
He said it was not necessary to set out deficiencies in exhaustive detail, but it was appropriate he should indicate by illustration and example some aspects of this deficiency.