Lawlor gets leave to fight order for his appearance at tribunal

Fianna Fail TD Mr Liam Lawlor was given leave by the High Court yesterday to challenge a number of orders made by the Flood tribunal…

Fianna Fail TD Mr Liam Lawlor was given leave by the High Court yesterday to challenge a number of orders made by the Flood tribunal, including an order that he appear before it and answer questions. The court was told Mr Lawlor feared "a trawl" through his private affairs.

Particularly because of his membership of the Dail Ethics Committee, and the responsibility attached, and his position in Irish politics, he should be given all information regarding any allegations against him, Mr Lawlor said.

The West Dublin TD was given permission to seek a declaration that he is entitled to be given by the tribunal sufficient details of allegations against him so he may address them to the extent necessary.

Mr Justice Kelly further granted leave to challenge an order directing Mr Lawlor to give a tribunal solicitor an affidavit stating the names of any company or companies of which he was a shareholder or director between January 1st, 1977, and December 31st, 1994, or in which he had a beneficial interest, and giving details.

READ MORE

Mr Lawlor is also challenging an order directing him to produce certain documents to a tribunal solicitor by May 18th last. That order covers documents relating to accounts held by or on behalf of Mr Lawlor, whether in his own name or otherwise, in any bank, building society or other financial institution, within or outsided the State, between January 1st, 1987, and December 31st, 1994.

It also concerns documents and records relating to the payment to Mr Lawlor of any monies by Arlington Securities plc and/or Mr Thomas Gilmartin, or by anybody on their behalf, and all documents and records relating to the negotiation of any cheques given to Mr Lawlor by or on behalf of Arlington Securities or Mr Gilmartin.

Mr Justice Kelly said that the granting of leave would operate as a stay on the orders which were sought to be impugned until further court order.

Consequently, he said, the three orders could not be further acted upon until the judicial review proceedings were determined or until further court order. He returned the matter to June 2nd.

Dealing with the tribunal's order that Mr Lawlor appear before it, Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for the TD, said what was apparently envisaged was a session with counsel where they would pose questions, without making any further disclosure on matters of interest to them.

Mr Lawlor also feared he might be forced to supply information which might be prejudicial to him, without having an opportunity to confront those who supplied it. He feared there would be a "trawl" through his private affairs.

In an affidavit, Mr Lawlor, of Somerton, Lucan, said he was first elected to the Dail in 1977. He was elected to Dublin County Council in 1979, re-elected in 1985 and was a candidate in next month's local elections.

He had first received a contact from the tribunal on October 6th last, when a solicitor indicated the tribunal chairman had read a newspaper article dated October 4th last and, as a consequence, sought information on certain matters in the report.

His initial reaction to the correspondence was surprise. His opinion was that it seemed somewhat unusual that a tribunal of inquiry entrusted with the task of investigating certain planning matters and payments should decide to base the particular request, or indeed any request which it might make to him, on a newspaper article.

Nevertheless, he formed the view he would fully co-operate to the best of his ability and resolved he would provide the tribunal with all proper lawful and necessary co-operation to assist it in the performance of its duties.

Mr Lawlor said, in the circumstances, there was manifest danger he might fail to provide information tending to vindicate him because he might not appreciate its relevance and might unwittingly misrepresent himself by making statements without putting them into context, because he was ignorant of the context in which they were relevant.