There are "no untouchables" in terms of the law, a High Court judge declared yesterday.
He directed that the Dublin West TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, be jailed for seven days from tomorrow for "blatant defiance" of court orders requiring him to co-operate with the Flood tribunal.
Mr Justice Smyth also fined Mr Lawlor £10,000 and awarded costs of the legal proceedings, estimated at nearly £200,000, against him.
The fact that Mr Lawlor, as a public representative, had failed to honour the orders was "a scandal" and his non-compliance was not unintentional, he said.
He added that the £10,000 fine imposed, while being the maximum he could levy, was in his opinion "several multiples" too low for the seriousness of the contempt involved.
Only a successful eleventh-hour application today to the Supreme Court for a stay, pending an appeal, on the High Court order can prevent Mr Lawlor being jailed.
Lawyers for Mr Lawlor have the option to go to the Supreme Court this morning.
Mr Justice Smyth yesterday imposed a jail sentence of three months for contempt of court orders requiring co-operation with the tribunal.
He ordered that seven days of the sentence be served from 2 p.m. tomorrow, but suspended the balance on conditions.
He refused to put a stay on his order but said lawyers for Mr Lawlor were free to go to the Supreme Court to appeal.
The balance of the sentence was suspended to enable him to comply with orders to provide documentation and other information to the tribunal.
It is open to the Supreme Court, in the event of an appeal, to hear submissions on whether there should be a stay pending its judgment.
Following the decision, Mr Lawlor said he had no comment to make. "The judge has a job to do," he observed.
Mr Lawlor was ordered by the High Court on October 24th last to appear before the tribunal and provide it with various documents and records within a set timescale and answer questions at the tribunal.
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal against the High Court decision.
Giving his reserved decision yesterday on contempt proceedings taken by the tribunal against the TD, Mr Justice Smyth said there had been blatant defiance of the Supreme Court decision. The non-compliance with the court orders was not unintentional.
"That he did so as a citizen is a disgrace, that he did so as a public representative is a scandal," he said.
The judge said contempt of the High Court and Supreme Court was of a serious character. It not only justified the imposition of a custodial sentence, but demanded it.
He referred to mitigating factors which had been advanced by lawyers for Mr Lawlor. However, he said, a three-month sentence was the least that could be imposed consequential with the offence and taking into account all the circumstances.
The judge said the first seven days of the sentence must be physically served as soon as the orders of the court were perfected.
He later said the seven-day sentence should take effect from 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The balance of the sentence would be suspended to enable Mr Lawlor to comply with the orders; swear affidavits of discovery; provide documentation to the tribunal at Dublin Castle; and afterwards attend the tribunal on notice and answer all questions as they arose.
Mr Justice Smyth said he would defer the balance of the sentence to November 21st next, the date of the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, to enable the tribunal to carry out its functions in an orderly manner.
The judge said the punitive element of the penalty was an intrusive sanction for the TD but also for family life and reputation.
Mr Lawlor was a member of the Oireachtas, and a protracted sentence could be seen as a disenfranchisement of those who had voted for him. There was a duty on the courts to ensure respect for the law, and this was best achieved by equality of application. "We must not make a scarecrow of the law, setting it to up feed the birds of prey", he added.
Apart from the seven-day term, no part of the balance of the sentence was to be served between now and the end of March, he said. He also allowed 10 days for Mr Lawlor to pay the fine. He added that certain documents were to be put before the tribunal within two weeks.
The judge said he was aware of the anxiety expressed on behalf of Mr Lawlor that some people may not have responded to his letters for information within two weeks.
He said the information should be given at fortnightly intervals. The final affidavit was to be in by March 30th. Both sides would have liberty to apply to the court in the event of any difficulty.
In his judgment, which took more than 90 minutes to deliver, the judge read through numerous passages from the transcripts of Mr Lawlor's four-day appearance before the tribunal last month. He quoted page numbers, lines, questions and answers.
Mr Justice Smyth referred to letters issued on behalf of Mr Lawlor seeking information and documents, dating from June 1974, for the tribunal. But, he said, it was only on December 21st last that letters, which in his opinion should have followed "hard on" the orders of June 8th, 2000, and certainly immediately after those of October 24th, were issued.
Of the 275 letters issued, only 35 had issued on December 21st, and this represented under 13 per cent of the total. The balance of the letters was dated December 22nd last.
During the first day of Mr Lawlor's appearance at the tribunal, his actions and inactions had been viewed seriously by the chairman, the judge said. He also noted warnings which had been issued by the sole member. Referring to letters written by Mr Lawlor to the banks, Mr Justice Smyth said Mr Lawlor's approach seemed to have been that the tribunal could be "fobbed off" if the TD acted as a conduit between the banks and the tribunal.
The judge was also critical of the preparation of some affidavits relating to information sought from banks.
When the tribunal referred to the deficit of £2.6 million between Mr Lawlor's declared income and what it alleged was his real income, the tribunal was seeking no more from the deputy than his own recollection, the judge said. It was not looking for a £1-for-£1 analysis.
In his decision, the judge said, he had had regard to all expressions of regret, affidavits, willingness of Mr Lawlor to provide information, the steps taken before and since the tribunal hearings and steps that would be taken.