The planning tribunal has summoned a journalist and a senior newspaper executive to appear in connection with the leaking of confidential documents, writes Paul Cullen.
Sunday Business Post journalist Barry O'Kelly and Mr Anthony Dinan, managing director of Thomas Crosbie Holdings, which owns the newspaper, have been called to give evidence on November 29th along with a solicitor for TCH, Mr Richard Martin, of Ronan Daly Jermyn.
Confidential tribunal material, notably the affidavits of developer Mr Tom Gilmartin and former minister Mr Pádraig Flynn, have appeared in various media outlets over the past year in advance of public hearings.
Leaks have generally followed the distribution of papers to interested parties and their legal teams. Witnesses appearing before the tribunal have been asked to declare that they did not disclose confidential documents to third parties; so far, all have denied involvement in any leaks.
Earlier this year, Judge Alan Mahon described as "regrettable" the disclosure of information from the statement of former minister Mrs Mary O'Rourke. However, he has largely refrained from public comment so far, in contrast to his predecessor, Mr Justice Feargus Flood, who condemned earlier leaks and threatened legal action against journalists who leaked tribunal information.
Former Fianna Fáil TD Mr Liam Lawlor raised the issue in earlier evidence when he claimed that the leaking of information meant it was "no longer credible" for the tribunal to maintain control of documentation it had denied to him and other witnesses.
The Sunday Business Post is currently without an editor since the departure of Mr Ted Harding last month.
At yesterday's hearing the tribunal rejected claims of unfair treatment and improper procedures made by Mr Lawlor. In a ruling, Judge Mahon said the tribunal was satisfied that it had respected Mr Lawlor's entitlement to fair procedures and would do so in the future.
Mr Lawlor had claimed in submissions earlier this month that the tribunal failed to ensure he had the same rights as someone facing a charge and had questioned him without first providing relevant documents. The tribunal was, in effect, trying to make a case against him and to assert that he was a beneficial owner of the Carrickmines land under investigation, as well as trying to have it rezoned, he said.
It had also failed to adopt fair procedures by asking him questions about land deals in which he was involved at Lucan and Baldoyle without giving him advance notice of the questions.
Mr Lawlor accused the tribunal of "facilitating" the naming of parties who were not represented at it and were unaware their names were being brought up. He complained that it was trying to "make a case" that he was involved in the ownership of the Carrickmines land.
He also objected to the fact that the tribunal was appealing an adverse High Court decision involving the developer Mr Owen O'Callaghan without proper regard for the expense the taxpayer would incur as a result.
However, Judge Mahon said yesterday that no one at the tribunal was disadvantaged by being asked questions, and the questions put to Mr Lawlor could not have come as a surprise to him. "Questions do not amount to allegations and no one can be said to be at a disadvantage by being merely asked whether or not he or she is or is not an owner of a piece of land."
The tribunal was not making a case against Mr Lawlor and had not put "trick" questions to him, the chairman said. Mr Lawlor had had no difficulty in dealing with the questions. The tribunal was satisfied that the politician's entitlement to fair procedures had been respected. On the issue of naming individuals, Judge Mahon said that the tribunal preferred not to publicise names where no advance notice had been given. However, this was not always possible. Fair procedures were not breached when people were named with no accompanying allegation of wrongdoing.
He pointed out that Mr Lawlor himself had breached this rule; in these circumstances, the tribunal found it difficult to understand his concern. The tribunal was perfectly entitled to appeal the O'Callaghan judgment, he added.
Mr Lawlor, who is abroad on business, was not present for yesterday's ruling.