Former Taoiseach Mr Charles Haughey will learn today in the Supreme Court if he has won his fight to stop the Moriarty tribunal investigating his financial affairs in a judgment that could affect the future of tribunals.
The Supreme Court will also deliver its ruling on the claim by Mr Haughey and members of his family that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, as amended, under which the Moriarty tribunal was set up, is unconstitutional.
His lawyers had told the court the Haugheys were mounting a "root and branch" attack on the Act's constitutionality. The State argued that reference to Mr Haughey in the tribunal's terms was fully justified.
The case could have ramifications if Mr Haughey and his family win any of their claims and could affect the future of the Moriarty and Flood tribunals which have been inquiring into the actions of Mr Haughey, Mr Michael Lowry and Mr Ray Burke.
Legal sources yesterday indicated that if Mr Haughey won his claim that the inquiry into his financial affairs was too extensive and an invasion of privacy it would mean the Moriarty tribunal would continue but would not be entitled to insist on production of documents and information. This would undoubtedly hamper a vital part of the tribunal's work.
If Mr Haughey won the constitutional case then all tribunals would be halted and it would result in a major upset for the Government. Another possibility is that even if Mr Haughey does not win, members of his family might succeed in challenging inquiries into their finances on the grounds that they are not politicians and it was not in the public interest.
Of course, the Supreme Court could uphold the High Court decision.
In the High Court judgment, Mr Justice Geoghegan said it was "bordering on the absurd", given the finding of the Dunnes tribunal, for Mr Haughey to claim he was being discriminated against compared with other former Taoisigh, ministers, TDs or other holders of Ansbacher accounts. It was also "preposterous" to suggest the obligations of ethics in public office began only with the 1995 Ethics in Public Office Act.
The road to this Supreme Court judgment started last year. The Moriarty tribunal has been operating since last September. It was set up by the Dail after the McCracken tribunal which investigated payments made by Mr Ben Dunne, and companies he was associated with, to politicians. Mr Haughey finally conceded to that tribunal that he had received payments of £1.3 million from Mr Dunne.
Mr Haughey's legal proceedings began in the High Court on January 13th last with preliminary issues. The case was taken by Mr Haughey; his wife, Ms Maureen Haughey; daughter Ms Eimear Mulhern; and sisters Ms Ethna Haughey and Ms Maureen Haughey against the sole member of the tribunal, Mr Justice Moriarty, the clerks of the Dail and Seanad, Ireland and the Attorney General.
The preparatory issues continued a few days later when lawyers for the Haugheys asked the court to direct the Moriarty tribunal to reveal the contents of a confidential letter sent to it by the Government Chief Whip. Tribunal lawyers contended the letter was privileged. On January 21st, Mr Justice Geoghegan rejected that application and others seeking various other documents in the tribunal's possession.
Mr Haughey responded by seeking a date to appeal this refusal to the Supreme Court. But on January 29th, an unexpected agreement to release documents cleared the way for the full hearing.
A date was fixed for March 3rd but there was another setback. Mr Haughey had fallen from a horse at Portmarnock Strand, Co Dublin. The court was told Mr Haughey had broken his leg in the accident and was unable to attend to give evidence. A new date was set for March 24th.
The hearing went ahead with Mr Haughey's counsel contending the tribunal had given Mr Haughey a "blanket task" of accounting for everything he did in more than 30 years in public office. The next day, Mr Haughey arrived at court and described the existence of the tribunal as "absurd, grossly unfair and iniquitous, personally directed towards me and my family, inquiring into every aspect of my finances going back as long as you like - to the beginning of time".
Then it was the tribunal lawyers' turn. The Haugheys' objections to the tribunal were at best premature and at worse unfounded.
They stressed Mr Haughey's "lavish lifestyle" and submitted that if he was singled out, he was singled out by his own actions. The existence of reasonable grounds for public concern was sufficient reason for a tribunal to be set up. On April 2nd, the case finished and on April 29th the judge rejected the Haugheys' case. On June 23rd Mr Haughey made his final attempt to stop the inquiry investigating his financial affairs when he appealed to the Supreme Court.