There can be little doubt, after yesterday's brief hearing, that former Taoiseach Mr Charles Haughey (75) is suffering from terminal cancer and that his illness makes him feel lethargic and affects his powers of concentration. Moreover, a number of leading physicians who have examined Mr Haughey are of the view that the stress and pressure of his having to deal with the Moriarty tribunal could mean he would die earlier than might otherwise be the case.
The tribunal chairman, Mr Justice Mori arty, is in the unenviable position of having to try to find the right balance between common decency and humanity and proceeding with the important work of the tribunal.
Yesterday he said he was unwilling to accept as a fait accompli the view of consultant urologist Mr Peter McLean that Mr Haughey should, in effect, have no more interaction with the tribunal.
At this stage, the tribunal is still working on hearing evidence from Mr Haughey in a way which will minimise the amount of stress involved. This could include the former Taoiseach responding in writing to questions from the tribunal, giving evidence in private or coming for even shorter hearings than the two-hour sessions he has been attending to date.
The tribunal was taken by surprise yesterday when Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for Mr Haughey, rose to speak at the outset of what was to be a private session involving questioning of Revenue officials. Mr McGonigal said Mr Haughey had decided his health was now a matter of public interest and that the details should be made public. He then outlined how Mr Haughey was suffering from prostate cancer, which had been diagnosed in 1995, and that there was no cure. Mr Haughey's medical team is of the view that he should have no further dealings with the tribunal. The tribunal, for its part, has noted that he is still a strong man, is not suffering pain and has unimpaired mental faculties. Most likely it will have its own medical examination conducted but, overall, it seems anxious to proceed with taking evidence from Mr Haughey, albeit by way of some new and less demanding format.
Mr Justice Moriarty complained yesterday about details of medical reports on Mr Haughey being leaked to the media. There is of course a public relations aspect to the affair. If the tribunal persists in taking evidence from Mr Haughey, it will no doubt be seen as cruel in some quarters.
On the other hand, as the tribunal alluded to yesterday, there have been many delays since 1997, the greatest of them caused by legal actions taken by Mr Haughey. Moreover, medical advice as to the adverse effects of his giving evidence was given to him last year but only to the tribunal in July, when Mr Haughey was first called to give evidence.
The Flood tribunal heard evidence last year from the late Joseph Murphy snr despite his suffering from a medical condition which meant he could not travel to give evidence. Evidence was heard from him over a number of days in Guernsey. He died earlier this year, and it is said his family feels that his having to give evidence hastened his end. He gave evidence voluntarily.
Legal opinion is that even if Mr Haughey were to give no further evidence to the tribunal, it can still complete its work and publish its report. It has already amassed a huge amount of evidence. The McCracken tribunal published its report without getting access to the Ansbacher accounts on the Cayman Islands.
To date, the taking of evidence from Mr Haughey has been slow, sometimes tortuously so. It is not clear why it is necessary to go through every lodgement or payment to him discovered by the tribunal. To date his evidence has consistently been that he knew very little about his own finances or who was giving him money. No allegations of favours in return for money have been made, so it would seem he has nothing to be questioned about there. Oddly enough his evidence may not be particularly important.