Mr James Gogarty was offered financial inducements to refrain from naming Mr Ray Burke in public proceedings, but was ultimately told that he would proceed "at his peril", the tribunal heard yesterday.
Describing contact he claims to have had with Mr Michael Bailey, of Bovale Developments, in late 1996, Mr Gogarty said he was telephoned by Mr Bailey after articles on rezoning started to appear in the national press.
Asked by counsel for the tribunal, Mr John Gallagher SC, what the articles referred to, Mr Gogarty said: "I'm talking about the whole episode that I've been telling you about here in the box for the last week or 10 days."
He said that the telephone call from Mr Bailey had centred on "the repercussions for him of it being out in the open about himself and Burke and all that type of thing, and he was under stress. He said he was very annoyed because of what was published in the Business Post and that I had given Frank Connolly [the journalist] information about the cheque, and he was warning me about what I was doing. As a last chance he had set up a meeting with Junior [Mr Joseph Murphy jnr], and I should meet him, and failure to meet him would be at my own peril.
"I said I was finished with Junior and finished with him and I left down the receiver."
Earlier, Mr Gogarty had given evidence of how a £50,000 cheque had been presented to him, along with advice to "enjoy" it and not to name Mr Ray Burke or Mr Bailey as a result of his difficulties with the Murphy group.
Following what he maintained was his refusal to accept the £50,000, Mr Gogarty claimed that he was contacted by Mr Bailey in 1996, initially in August.
He said Mr Bailey had "pressed" him to meet him, and a meeting had been arranged for the Sutton House Hotel. At this meeting Mr Gogarty said Mr Bailey offered him work on a building project he was involved with in Palmerstown. Mr Gogarty said Mr Bailey needed an engineer's report and a survey and "he was anxious that I would do that and he would be very obliged if I did".
However, Mr Gogarty said he was unable to help, as he had retired and no longer had professional indemnity insurance.
"He [Mr Bailey] then said he heard our house was up for sale . . . He asked me what we were asking for it and I told him. And he said `Oh God, it's worth more than that'. We were asking £250,000 for it and he said he had some clients who would be very interested and who would pay more, well more than that. And I said to him if that is the case we have an auctioneer retained in Sutton, and that's the man you want to contact, because he has the sole agency of selling the house."
Mr Gogarty said that Mr Bailey went on again to raise the matter of his [Mr Gogarty's] disagreements with the Murphy group. "He wanted me to forget about it, because it was only causing trouble and Ray Burke was - he referred to Ray Burke again and that my solicitors were only out to do down Ray Burke."
Mr Gogarty said that he had changed solicitors previous to that time, appointing the Newry firm of Donnelly Neary and Donnelly. This was the firm which had advertised, on behalf of a client, a £10,000 reward for information on corruption in the planning process.
"He said they were only out to do down Ray Burke and himself and he pleaded with me to get rid of them . . . He asked me where we were moving to and I said our wish would be that we could settle down in Galway. He said that at that time they were developing property in Kilmainham and he could interest me in a property there if we wanted to stay in Dublin. I said we would try and get out of the city."
Following this meeting with Mr Bailey, his home had been visited by a woman who said she was an auctioneer. The woman had told him that she had instructions to survey the property because she had potential purchasers. "I said `who gave you those instructions?' and she said it was Mr Bailey. I said I already have an auctioneer and anything that is to be done has to be done through him. So I never heard anything since."
Mr Gogarty said it was only after these offers of assistance from Mr Bailey had been refused that he had been told to proceed "at his peril".
Following Mr Gogarty's evidence, Mr Colm Allen SC, for Mr Bailey, said that the allegations were vigorously rejected by Mr Bailey. Mr Allen asked that counsel for the tribunal should acknowledge this in his taking of Mr Gogarty's evidence.
