Mr Justice Moriarty has outlined the procedures to be followed by the Payments to Politicians Tribunal and his interpretation of its terms of reference, following the Supreme Court decision obliging him to do so. Last July the Supreme Court quashed some 30 orders the tribunal had made in order to get access to documents concerning Mr Charles Haughey's financial affairs. The court ruled that fair procedures had not been followed, and that the tribunal must seek to make the orders again, this time giving Mr Haughey notice and an opportunity to object.
Outlining the procedures to be followed in future, Mr Justice Moriarty said yesterday that in future when the tribunal wished to examine certain documents, it would first ask the person in possession of them to produce them voluntarily. Any other person likely to be affected by the production of the documents would also be notified that the documents were being sought.
He told a special tribunal sitting at Dublin Castle that if the person did not volunteer the documents, the tribunal would give notice that it intended to seek an order for their production. Persons affected would also be given notice and the tribunal would hear any representations or submissions they would have, orally or in writing. Oral submissions would be heard at a private sitting. Having considered the submissions, the judge would then make an order if he considered it necessary.
Public hearings of the tribunal would be the next step. Persons likely to be affected would again be given notice and an outline of any evidence relevant to them.
The tribunal was set up by the Oireachtas last September to inquire into payments made to Mr Haughey and Mr Michael Lowry, and whether they made any decisions while holding public office which conferred benefits on those who made such payments, if any.
Giving his interpretation of the terms of reference, he said they oblige it to investigate any "substantial payments" made to Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry "in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the motive for making the payment was connected with any public office held by him or had the potential to influence the discharge of such office".
Mr Justice Moriarty said he would decide what was a "substantial payment" by reference to its size, when it was paid, whether there were other related payments made about the same time from the same source or other sources and the resources of the person making and the person receiving the payment.
"Therefore, whilst a payment in the amount of £500 or £600 may not seem large now or so large as to be substantial, the same could not be said of a payment made in 1979. All the same, such a payment, depending on the resources of the person by whom it is made and the motive with which it is made, could be substantial.
"Moreover, whilst a single payment in the amount of £500 or £600 might not be sufficiently large in today's terms to be regarded as `substantial', a number of payments of that amount from the one source over a short period of time or a number of related payments or concerted payments from a number of different sources might amount to such a substantial payment." He envisaged the tribunal would first identify and examine payments made to Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry.
It would then investigate if they made any act or decision which conferred any benefit on the person making the payment. Payments included payments in cash, in kind, the granting of credit, discount or other monetary or financial benefit. The tribunal was also obliged not to exclude payments made indirectly to Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry through the payment of debts owed by a person connected to them.
He also asserted the tribunal's obligation "to inquire into and re port in connection with the source of funds in any accounts, other than the Ansbacher accounts discovered by the tribunal to be for the benefit of a connected person, with a view to establishing whether there is a context discernibly referable" to Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry.