'Dear Deputy, I read your letter yesterday with disbelief. I categorically reject your outrageous suggestions and find it deeply offensive that you would write to me in this tone." Thus wrote Charles Haughey to the then Labour Party leader, Dick Spring, in 1989, writes Mary Raftery.
Haughey was referring to an allegation from Dick Spring that he (Haughey) had received money from disgraced property tycoon Patrick Gallagher. Thanks to the Moriarty report this week, we now know this to be entirely true. We also know that the information in Dick Spring's possession which had provoked such a furious denial concerned only a fraction of the total sums which Haughey received from Gallagher.
Mr Justice Moriarty deals in considerable detail with the relationship between Gallagher and Haughey. During the period in question (1979 onwards), the former was one of the richest property speculators in the State and the latter was taoiseach. Haughey needed a digout - he was heavily in debt to Allied Irish Banks. He approached Gallagher, who volunteered the sum of £300,000. In today's money, this amounts to a whopping €1.2 million.
Between them, they came up with a bogus land transaction deal designed to confer some legitimacy on this huge transfer of funds. However, Mr Justice Moriarty has now deemed that the money was in fact a payment made to Haughey "in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the motive for making the payment was connected with any public office held by him or had the potential to influence the discharge of such office". It was 10 years later when Dick Spring got wind of Gallagher's donations to Haughey. These concerned smaller amounts channelled through the Gallagher-controlled bank, Merchant Banking Ltd. By 1989, though, the Gallagher empire had collapsed and Patrick Gallagher himself had been convicted of fraud in Northern Ireland, where he also had business interests.
At that time, I was producing an RTÉ current affairs documentary on the Gallagher empire, during the course of which we also obtained information about the payments through Merchant Banking to Haughey. When asked to comment, Haughey's response was memorable.
His press adviser PJ Mara informed us that the taoiseach had a legal writ in his back pocket which he would serve on RTÉ the instant any reference was made to money received from Patrick Gallagher. RTÉ eventually decided on legal advice to exclude from our programme any reference to these payments.
However, we were able to provide considerable detail on the fraudulent nature of Patrick Gallagher's activities.
According to the liquidator of Merchant Banking, there was possible evidence that 79 separate offences had been committed in connection with the bank's business.
These included bribery, conspiracy, corrupt transactions, fraudulent taking, falsifying or destroying books, publishing fraudulent statements, false returns to the Central Bank, causing a gift or transfer of property, concealment of property, and obtaining credit by false pretences.After this damning report was lodged with the High Court, the Garda Fraud Squad investigated and forwarded a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
More than five years later, a decision was taken not to prosecute Gallagher.
By this stage, he was already serving a two-year sentence in Northern Ireland for fraud. It has always remained a mystery as to why no action was taken against Gallagher in this jurisdiction.
It is fully possible that there are entirely logical and convincing reasons for his non-prosecution. It is certainly true that the fraud legislation at the time was inadequate and that fraud was a notoriously difficult crime to prosecute successfully.
The principal difficulty here has always been the absence of explanation for the non-prosecution of Gallagher.
While it is standard policy for the DPP not to provide reasons for decisions - often with good reason - there have over the years been a number of cases where this has led to serious public disquiet. Perhaps none is quite so stark as the case of Patrick Gallagher.
It is important to point out that there has never been a shred of evidence that there was anything improper in the decision not to prosecute Gallagher, or that it was taken on anything other than a sound legal basis.
What concerns us here is that in the context of what appears to be prima facie evidence of criminal activity on the part of Gallagher, the State provided no explanation for its lack of action. This in turn has the potential to undermine public confidence in the institutions of the State.
It is regrettable that Mr Justice Moriarty did not address himself to this particular issue.
Given that part of his remit was to examine what benefits might have accrued to those who gave money to Haughey, it could be argued that the non-prosecution of Gallagher for fraud was an obvious line of inquiry, if only to rule out any suspicion that friends in high places could put you above the law of the land.