Lawyers for persons against whom allegations have been made said yesterday that the money paid to Mr Ray Burke was paid at the command of Mr James Gogarty. They contended that in a statement to the tribunal they had said that an in-house accountant for Murphys drew money from the bank on the express instructions of Mr Gogarty and gave it to him.
The tribunal was also told in submissions that a statement by a Garda inspector suggested that Mr Gogarty made allegations that he [Mr Gogarty] paid Mr Burke £30,000, and it was stated that this contradicted Mr Gogarty's evidence in the witness box.
The lawyers were making their submissions on the right to cross-examine Mr Gogarty. The chairman, Mr Justice Flood, said that he was inviting each individual person to furnish a narrative statement to the tribunal. The object was to get from witnesses their part and participation in the events he was inquiring into.
Unfortunately, an adversarial attitude had arisen. "It is a sad moment and does not assist my understanding of each person's approach", the chairman said. "We should not be in a state of adversarial ambush."
No person should be entitled to walk in and give an adverse version of events to the one given under oath, without first disclosing what the events were in a narrative statement. Before that person cross-examined anybody else, that person should give evidence on oath as to what part he or she played, the chairman said.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the Murphys and the companies, said that his clients had been subjected to grave allegations.
Mr Gogarty had initiated these allegations in August 1996 when he first leaked them anonymously to Frank Connolly, of the Sunday Business Post. The allegations were of the utmost serious nature, alleging corruption and criminal activity. "I understand we are not being allowed to confront our accuser and rebut his accounts", Mr Cooney said.
It was well established that, where a person's constitutional rights were affected, as a minimal right he had the right to confront and cross-examine the person, to test the accuracy and credibility of the allegations.
Regarding the payments to Mr Burke, Mr Cooney said: "We've told you in simple, direct terms we were not there. That's all. We told you that it was our money, but that it was paid at the command of Mr Gogarty, who was in acrimonious dispute with our company."
The chairman asked if he was saying it was "a frolic" by Mr Gogarty.
Mr Cooney said that it was plain in a statement from Mr Tim O'Keeffe, their in-house accountant. "That makes it abundantly clear that he [Mr O'Keeffe] drew money from the bank at the express instructions of Mr Gogarty and, having done so, came back and gave that money to Mr Gogarty", he said.
The chairman asked if they were saying that Mr Gogarty was on a frolic of his own. Mr Cooney said that that would be their case.
Mr Colm Allen SC, for the Baileys and Bovale Ltd, said that Mr Gogarty had spent the last number of days giving evidence "of a particularly poisonous nature". If it was true, Mr Gogarty had accused himself of criminal misconduct.
His clients, particularly Mr Michael Bailey, had a family and a name, and Mr Bailey had a right to protection of his good name. His client had to be afforded the right to defend himself.
Counsel submitted that Mr Bailey had an absolute right to challenge without giving Mr Gogarty the chance to prepare his defence. "And, if that be ambush, then, sir, let there be no doubt about it, Mr Gogarty is in for some big ambush", he added.
Mr Michael Bailey had given a voluntary statement to the tribunal in which he denied the allegations and stated his intention to give oral evidence, Mr Allen said.
Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for Mr Ray Burke, said it was slightly premature to try to set procedures in cross-examination.
The tribunal had been furnished with a statement by gardai of the investigations and statements taken a long time ago. "In the statement of Insp Hanratty there is a suggestion that Mr Gogarty at that time made allegations that he [Mr Gogarty] paid Mr Burke £30,000. That piece of evidence has not yet been put by anybody to Mr Gogarty. It is a contradiction of his evidence in the witness box", Mr McGonigal said.