MR Cooney told the chairman yesterday he remained convinced that he neither said nor did anything the previous day which warranted an apology.
Mr Cooney responded to the chairman's statement that if there was no apology his entitlement to address the tribunal on behalf of his clients would be withdrawn.
"It would be both hypocritical and insincere on my part to offer the apology which you demand and I do not propose to make such an apology," he said.
He said there might be, just might be, an element of subjectivity in his response to the chairman's demand for an apology and in order to meet that he proposed that the matter be referred to the Professional Practices Committee of the Bar Council to await its adjudication.
If that adjudication resulted in any finding which was critical of him, then he would respond adequately and fully to such a finding.
Mr Cooney said that the previous day the chairman referred to the length of time in which he had been at the bar, nearly 40 years, and during that time had known the chairman as a colleague and a judge. He had appeared before him and during those years had learned to respect him very much.
"Now, any impression of disrespect which you may have gained during the course of this tribunal, Mr chairman, is not intentional, but based on a very firm conviction that almost from the date of its establishment, this tribunal has not given a fair crack of the whip to my clients, Mr chairman."
The chairman said he would rise to consider Mr Cooney's proposition. However, when he returned he said Mr Cooney had had since 12.45 p.m. the previous day to tender an apology. He had listened with care to what he had said and fully took into account the significance of the matters he had mentioned.
"I want to reject most emphatically that this tribunal is in any way biased. I, nevertheless, have come to the conclusion that in order to maintain the integrity of the tribunal, I must order that Mr Cooney's entitlement to address the tribunal on behalf of his clients is hereby withdrawn."
He asked Mr Dan Herbert SC and Mr Michael Cush SC, both for JMSE, if they would continue. Mr Herbert said he held the chairman in the highest distinguish ment but, regretfully, he must decline to go on and he fully supported what Mr Cooney had said. Mr Cush said his position was the same.
When the chairman asked Mr Colm Allen SC, for the Baileys and Bovale, if he would commence cross-examination, counsel said a situation had arisen which posed very considerable difficulties for him of a professional nature. He asked that he be given 24 hours in which to consult his professional body. This view was also taken by other members of his team.
He was not refusing to cross-examine, and there was no question of his withdrawing from the proceedings.