Evidence emerges to support Dunlop over Cosgrave

Significant new information supporting Mr Frank Dunlop's account of his dealings with the former senator, Mr Liam Cosgrave, has been revealed at the Flood tribunal.

Mr Dunlop told the tribunal last year he handed £5,000 in cash to Senator Cosgrave outside a church in Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock, on November 11th, 1992. His diary makes brief reference to a payment at 2.30 p.m., but Mr Dunlop said the two men met several hours later, as Mr Cosgrave was attending a removal.

However, his allegations against Mr Cosgrave suffered a serious blow when tribunal lawyers said there was no funeral at the church on that date. In cross-examination, Mr Cosgrave's lawyers accused him of lying and claimed the diary entry was forged.

But yesterday tribunal lawyers said new information had come to light that showed there had, in fact, been a removal at the church at 5.30 p.m. that afternoon. Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, read a newspaper death notice of Dr Des Dillon of Newtownpark Avenue, who died at a nursing home in Dalkey on November 10th and whose removal took place at the Church of the Guardian Angels the following day.

Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Mr Cosgrave, said the revelation could only be explained by "human error". For the third time in recent weeks, he called on the tribunal to end its investigations into his client. However, Judge Alan Mahon said there had been no mistake. An earlier investigation has "thrown up a blank" and new information had then come to hand. While this was inconvenient and annoying for counsel, it was a simple matter for him to get instructions from Mr Cosgrave as to whether he had attended Dr Dillon's funeral.

Mr O'Higgins said he would have thought the basic starting point for any investigation would have been the newspapers of the day. Was the tribunal saying its investigations were perfectly adequate? Judge Mahon said the tribunal didn't have to explain the extent of the investigations it carried out.

Mr Gallagher said new documents would arise from time to time in the tribunal's work. This was as it should be. "I regret the material wasn't available earlier, but these things happen. I'm sorry they happened," he said.

Mr O'Higgins said the system by which the tribunal was dealing with Mr Dunlop's allegations was unworkable and unfair to his client and should cease. He highlighted a number of instances, including the latest revelation, in which new information had come to light which had "undone" his cross-examination of Mr Dunlop.

The tribunal rejected Mr O'Higgins's submission. Mr Justice Flood said that, given the volume of business, it would happen from time to time that new evidence would emerge. It was essential that the interested parties were made aware of this as soon as possible. The chairman said he was satisfied this had been done and that the appropriate inquiries had been made.