Haughey's old enemy Harney saves his skin

It's over. The decision of Judge Kevin Haugh during the week means Charles Haughey may now never be punished. Despite all that has emerged concerning his affairs during the past three years, the former taoiseach can spend his remaining years surrounded by the great wealth he accumulated and without having been convicted of any wrongdoing.

The criminal charge of having obstructed the McCracken tribunal, which has now been deferred, was far and away the most serious threat he faced.

The charge carried with it a possible jail sentence on conviction, though a suspended sentence or fine was always more likely. The Circuit Court judge has now deferred the case indefinitely, largely because of the unguarded comments of Mary Harney, who said Mr Haughey should be jailed.

Because of the absence of any legislation concerning corruption or the acceptance of huge undisclosed payments while in high office, it was Mr Haughey's efforts to frustrate the McCracken tribunal, rather than the matters uncovered by that inquiry, which created the possibility of his being punished.

There is little likelihood he will leave himself open to a similar charge arising from his dealings with the Moriarty tribunal. During the McCracken tribunal he responded in writing to questions from the tribunal lawyers, leaving himself exposed when the lawyers then managed to prove that these statements were incorrect.

He and his advisers have adopted a different approach to Moriarty. He is saying nothing to that tribunal until it has completed its work and heard all the relevant evidence in public. There is, therefore, almost no chance of him facing the same kind of charge of obstruction as he did with McCracken.

Mr Haughey was particularly delighted with this week's developments, according to his friends, because of the irony that his old enemy Mary Harney was to blame for his good fortune.

"God looks after his own," one friend said to him afterwards. `He f***ing took long enough," Mr Haughey is said to have replied.

In the immediate aftermath of the McCracken report, which found Mr Haughey had received £1.3 million from Ben Dunne between 1987 and 1991, observers thought the possibility existed that the Revenue might seek a prosecution.

The tribunal had revealed that Mr Haughey had not paid tax on the Dunne money and also that he had not availed of the 1993 tax amnesty, which is an offence under the terms of that amnesty.

As it transpired, however, not only did the Revenue not issue proceedings against Mr Haughey, it failed even to raise a successful assessment against him.

When Appeal Commissioner Ronan Kelly found in Mr Haughey's favour, the Revenue went to the Circuit Court but then settled with Mr Haughey before the case was heard. The settlement was on the basis that Mr Haughey accepted no liability for any tax offence. And that was that.

Mr Haughey agreed to pay £1 million, but given the huge growth in the value of his assets in recent years, that is not a huge problem.

He is currently raising £5 million from the sale of just 10 acres at the edge of his 250-acre Kinsealy estate, so after settling his tax bill he will have £4 million in change. Even after he has paid his legal and other advisers, he should have money left over.

It was Mr Haughey's bad fortune that someone who had access to highly confidential information concerning the affairs of the Dunne family chose to leak some of that information to the media three years ago. However, it has been his great good fortune that his exposure has occurred against a backdrop of unprecedented economic growth and hugely inflated property prices.

The Kinsealy estate, which was bought for just over £200,000 without a mortgage in 1969, is now worth about £120 million - not including the house. And the family also has a yacht, a holiday home in Co Wexford and an island off the coast of Co Kerry.

The Moriarty tribunal has estimated that Mr Haughey received £8.5 million in the years covered by its terms of reference, 1979 to 1996. Mr Haughey has already settled with the Revenue in relation to some of this money.

The money covered by the McCracken report and £300,000 he received from Patrick Gallagher in early 1980 are two examples. For many of the other amounts identified by the tribunal there are potential difficulties from the point of view of raising a Revenue assessment: in some cases the donor is not identified; in others the money trail is incomplete.

And given the performance of the Revenue to date in relation to Mr Haughey's affairs, any particularly robust initiative by it against him after Moriarty seems unlikely.

Another 10 or 15 acres of Kinsealy land should be enough to settle the tax bill which will arise after Moriarty. It is hard to argue that a man living in a part-Gandon-designed mansion on a 200-acre-plus estate in north Dublin, and who has a private yacht and private island, has been punished for having secretly accepted millions of pounds from rich business figures during his tenure as taoiseach.

This year Mr Haughey will receive a pension of £45,226 from his years as government minister and taoiseach and a further £19,592 from his years as a TD. He has a State car and driver, Garda security on his home, and even free use of a mobile telephone.

Friends argue that he has been punished by having his reputation destroyed and his achievements during more than 30 years in public life eclipsed. He reportedly does not accept that he has nobody but himself to blame for this.

And by all accounts he is in good spirits.