On July 15th, 1997, Mr Justice McCracken, who was chairing the tribunal of inquiry into payments to politicians by Ben Dunne, received a written statement from a witness, writes Fintan O'Toole
It said: "I accept that I have not co-operated with this tribunal in a manner which would have been expected of me . . . I omitted to instruct my lawyers fully . . .
"I was concerned as to the effect that the publication of these payments would have for me in the public mind and in hindsight I accept that a lot of the problems and embarrassment that I have caused would have been avoided if I had been more forthcoming at each and every relevant period."
That witness was the former Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil leader, Charles Haughey. Just a week earlier he had made a written statement to the tribunal. In it, he denied knowing anything about the circumstances in which payments of £1.3 million had been made to him by Ben Dunne.
In his July 15th statement, he admitted that this earlier statement was false, and that he had even misled his own legal team. Even after this admission, however, he gave evidence under oath which the judge regarded as incredible.
Mr Justice McCracken reported that he found "unacceptable and untrue" Charles Haughey's claims that he knew nothing about his personal finances, that he never knew about his account with Ansbacher Cayman Ltd, that he was entirely ignorant of the affairs of Celtic Helicopters, that he couldn't remember Ben Dunne personally handing him bank drafts for £210,000 sterling and that he was unaware of the tax implications of the gifts.
The tribunal in question was not a court, but it did have some of the powers, and supposedly all of the dignity, of the High Court. Though not literally amounting to contempt of court, the deliberate attempt to mislead a tribunal would generally be regarded as an offence of similar gravity and is subject to a similar range of legal sanctions. No such sanctions have been imposed.
Contrast this, however, with the treatment of another party leader, Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party, who was immediately packed off to Mountjoy Jail last Friday when he refused to abide by an order of the High Court. In his case, and that of his colleague Cllr Clare Daly, punishment was swift, harsh and decisive. No second chance, no invitation to think carefully over the weekend, not even a short, symbolic sentence as a warning shot. In this case, the law is the law and will not be trifled with.
The question here is not whether one agrees with either Joe Higgins's opposition to bin collection charges or with the method he and his colleagues have chosen to pursue their cause. As it happens, I agree with neither. Anyone who looks at the appalling waste crisis in this country and at the culture of environmental irresponsibility that has created it can't support the notion that waste-disposal is "free".
(It's a fair bet that the same people who are blocking bin lorries in Dublin today will tomorrow be blocking roads in protest at the construction of the dumps and incinerators that will be needed if we continue to produce waste so irresponsibly.)
And the democratic rights of people who have chosen to pay the bin charges need to be respected, too.
The problem is the double standard. If we had a system in this country where politicians and anyone else who defies the law is brought before the courts and punished appropriately, then the jailing of Joe Higgins and Clare Daly would be harsh but justifiable.
We have no such system. While they are in jail for pursuing political objectives which clearly have the support of many of the people who elected them as public representatives, other public figures alleged by tribunals or juries to have defied the law seem to be untouchable.
In the current Dáil alone, we have Michael Lowry, of whom Mr Justice McCracken's report noted that he "was able to ignore, and indeed cynically evade, both the taxation and exchange control laws of the State with impunity". A jury of her peers found that Beverley Cooper-Flynn colluded in tax evasion when she was a banker.
She may still appeal that judgment, as she is entitled to do, but the Taoiseach has been hinting that, even if she doesn't, she can stay in the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. John Ellis was given £25,000 of public money drawn from the party leader's account by Charles Haughey in 1989 and 1990. The money was apparently drawn from AIB using cheques co-signed by Bertie Ahern.
Yet the Taoiseach has been suggesting that Joe Higgins might be censured by the Dáil for his defiance of a court order.
Asked why the same strictures did not apply to Tony Gregory, who defied a court order during protests by Dublin street traders in the 1980s and was supported by Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach explained that the difference was that Tony Gregory was "a nice guy".