The sheer effrontery of those wealthy and prominent citizens who obstructed and lied to various tribunals of inquiry established by the Dáil is breathtaking. Having broken the law in some instances and attempted to avoid their obligations in others, many of them sought - and are still seeking - to have their legal costs reimbursed at the expense of the tax-paying public. If such an outcome was facilitated, it would pile insult upon civic injury and seriously undermine public confidence in the value of such investigations.
Happily, recent rulings on legal costs by Judge Alan Mahon who is dealing with political and planning corruption in the Dublin area, and by Mr Justice Morris, who is examining Garda corruption in Donegal, have made it plain that only those individuals who co-operate with the tribunals will have their expenses reimbursed. This is an important advance on some previous judicial inquiries where legal expenses were paid to unco-operative individuals and companies. Recent legislation has facilitated such a development. And wilful obstruction can now expose a witness to being levied with a portion of the State's own legal costs.
There was little sympathy for former minister for justice, Mr Ray Burke, when an application for payment of his legal bill, estimated at €10 million, was turned down by Judge Mahon last month, because of the way he had obstructed and lied to an investigation conducted by Mr Justice Flood. Mr Burke was found to have received corrupt payments, but the reason given for rejecting the bill was his failure to co-operate. Last week, businessmen Mr Oliver Barry and Mr James Stafford, who made corrupt payments to Mr Burke, had their legal bills rejected on similar grounds.
In the same way, a former Dublin city official, Mr George Redmond, was offered only minimal relief on an estimated legal bill of €1 million. And, in Donegal, Mr Justice Morris refused the costs of a former detective garda and a suspended superintendent who had arranged bogus explosive finds to further their careers.
These developments are to be welcomed. At a time when there has been much controversy over the cost of tribunals and their slow rate of progress, it is important that a clear message is sent to those who obstruct their work. The State and the public purse can no longer be regarded as a soft touch for legal fees. Those who fail to co-operate will pay a high price. Just how high may yet depend on the wealth of those involved. For, if they are found to have added significantly to the tribunal's costs through court challenges and other mechanisms, they may be required to fund all or part of that excess.
Such a ruling would break new ground. But, just as the Revenue Commissioners are adopting a more abrasive approach towards non-compliant taxpayers in the community, change may also be coming in the way tribunals conduct their business.