Some parties, including Mr Ray Burke, Mr Michael Bailey, and JMSE, had not furnished full statements of evidence to the tribunal, counsel for the tribunal said yesterday.
Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, was making submissions on cross-examination arising from a tribunal letter to all parties on January 18th. This confirmed that persons who had not furnished in advance a statement of their evidence on a particular issue should not be entitled to cross-examine Mr James Gogarty on that issue until after they had given their own oral evidence.
He read correspondence dated from last October between the tribunal and solicitors for the parties about submitting narrative statements. He said a short statement was received from Mr Burke on January 11th. He did not think it unfair to characterise it as a "minimalist statement".
It confined itself exclusively to allegations Mr Gogarty made and confined itself to the meeting in Mr Burke's house. It did not provide the tribunal with any information by which it could further investigate the veracity or otherwise of the allegations, both in relation to who may have been at the meeting or the amount of money that may have been handed over.
In fairness to Mr Burke, his involvement with Mr Gogarty was undoubtedly confined to one meeting, and one would expect the narrative would be short enough. The tribunal's complaint was that it gave no other material by which the tribunal could advance the investigation and shed some light on these events from information from Mr Burke's perspective.
Mr Hanratty said that in a letter from Mr Burke's solicitors, they had suggested it was the intention to treat Mr Burke's statement to Dail Eireann as his statement to the tribunal. But when the tribunal wrote noting this, the solicitors responded by saying they would not consent to this.
Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for Mr Burke, said this was not so.
In the correspondence concerning Mr Michael Bailey, Mr Thomas Bailey and Bovale Ltd, Mr Hanratty said these parties expressed concerns about furnishing a statement, particularly about leaks to the media.
In a letter of January 6th, the solicitors said Mr Michael Bailey could not be regarded as a mere witness as he stood as an accused person before the tribunal.
On January 11th, Mr Bailey's statement was received and the tribunal wrote to the solicitors. In the letter it was stated that Mr Bailey had said nothing about a £50,000 cheque Mr Gogarty alleged he gave to him, except that he would supplement his evidence on the matter to the tribunal.
Mr Eamonn Leahy SC, for the Baileys, said Mr Bailey in the statement denied the money was received for the purpose stated by Mr Gogarty.
In reference to a letter of June 8th, 1989, written by Mr Bailey, Mr Hanratty said it outlined two proposals for the 700-odd acres of land. There were significant matters in the letter that merited inquiry. Mr Bailey threw no light on it.
There were references in the letter of June 8th to procurement of planning permission, zoning, financial outlay. There was no information at all in Mr Bailey's statement about matters central to the inquiry, said Mr Hanratty.
In the case of JMSE parties, statements were received in late December from individuals from whom they were requested. At the beginning of each statement there was a narrative history of their involvement in JMSE and then they dealt with Mr Gogarty's allegations.
What they had been given were "truncated statements". The overall impression one got from reading these statements was an overwhelming suspicion that when the time came for Mr Gogarty to be cross-examined, the tribunal was going to be confronted with new material which would undoubtedly take Mr Gogarty by surprise.
In November, from correspondence, there appeared to be no problem and it was indicated that the statement of evidence requested from Mr Joe Murphy snr, Mr Joe Murphy jnr, Mr Frank Reynolds and Mr Roger Copsey was in the course of preparation.
At the end of November, the tribunal asked not only for a narrative statement but asked to interview the parties as well. The JMSE parties then intimated that they would not consent to interviews and submissions were made on the issue at a private tribunal sitting.
A compromise was reached that a narrative statement would be furnished and would include Mr Tim O'Keeffe, who had recently become a client. But in a letter of December 9th, solicitors for JMSE expressed concern that statements furnished to the tribunal had been leaked to the media. As a result, they stated that their clients had decided to furnish a statement dealing with essential matters, not as detailed, but dealing with crucial issues.
Mr Hanratty said in general terms, on the allegations, the parties involved resented them, but it was a necessary consequence of a public inquiry. It did not entitle the parties to take part in a pitched battle and ambush Mr Gogarty. It was not the intent to ambush anybody.
Anybody was entitled to come in and cross-examine any witness who made statements but they were not entitled to ambush, spring traps, surprise, or pull rabbits out of hats, Mr Hanratty said.
They should recognise that they should co-operate by providing all the information at their disposal. He would ask JMSE to reconsider whether it would now submit the more detailed statement already prepared.
He would invite Mr Bailey to consider whether he should supply a statement and deal with the £50,000 cheque and the June 8th letter and consider when looking at the statement if there was anything else he could provide.
"With the evidence of Mr Gogarty and the issues which arise out of his evidence, there are a myriad of factual issues. Some affect some parties and some affect other parties," he said.
Mr Hanratty said another option would be to have all witnesses give their evidence in chief first and for cross-examination to take place after that.