The Flood tribunal has denied it is operating a "witness protection programme" for Mr Frank Dunlop or that it has struck any special deal with the former lobbyist and Government press secretary.
Tribunal lawyers said Mr Dunlop was getting no special treatment from the tribunal and there had been no discussions about the effect of Mr Dunlop's evidence to the tribunal on a potential criminal prosecution.
Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, was replying yesterday to submissions by lawyers for the politicians whom Mr Dunlop accuses of bribery and corruption. These had accused the tribunal of operating a witness protection programme as well as suggesting that Mr Dunlop was staving off criminal prosecution through his involvement with the tribunal.
The tribunal will rule next week on a call by lawyers for the politicians for full access to confidential tribunal documents relating to Mr Dunlop and on a claim that tribunal lawyers have not properly tested his credibility.
Mr Gallagher said Mr Dunlop was being treated as a witness just as every other witness before the tribunal. Given the "inappropriate" questions from opposing counsel, it was "absolutely necessary" for him to say there was no deal done with the witness.
He accused lawyers for Cllr Liam Cosgrave of engaging in a "trawling exercise" by seeking confidential documents relating to Mr Dunlop. It was in the public interest that the tribunal should not disclose confidential material to any person.
Mr Gallagher said the tribunal was only dealing with the present module on Carrickmines at this stage. It couldn't allow a wide-ranging trawl through material that might otherwise never see the light of day simply to facilitate Cllr Cosgrave.
He said no one would be deprived of their right to cross-examine or to reopen a cross-examination of any matter arising that might affect the credibility of a witness. It wasn't necessary to go through each and every answer given by Mr Dunlop to determine whether they were truthful or not truthful.
Responding to criticisms that he had failed to test Mr Dunlop's credibility, Mr Gallagher said his questioning could be "a long, drawn-out, boring and repetitive" process or it could be done in a way that was "to the point" and elicited the information required.
Every inconsistency arising in Mr Dunlop's evidence was fully and properly explored. "But if I'm wrong in that, it's open to the other counsel to ask any questions they wish that are relevant."
Mr Gallagher said what was happening at the tribunal was "clearly and easily" distinguishable from the judgment in the Abbeylara case, which had been cited by Mr Cosgrave's lawyers.
Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Cllr Cosgrave, said there should have been a full investigation into Mr Dunlop's attempts to "hoodwink" the tribunal.
He said Mr Dunlop wanted people to believe there was a culture of corruption among councillors, while the "monied men" who were his clients were given "an encomium". The witness had claimed a payment of £2,000 to a councillor was "bad" or "dirty" while the sum of £1.15 million he received from one client was "good".
Mr O'Higgins said it was "completely and utterly surreal" that Cllr Cosgrave did not know if he would be involved in future modules of the tribunal.
