Evidence exposes contradictions in accounts given by witnesses

The planning tribunal is to resume its investigations tomorrow into a media leak alleging a new payment to Mr James Gogarty, following a dramatic day's evidence which exposed serious contradictions in the accounts given by different witnesses.

The developer, Mr Michael Bailey, drew £50,000 in cash from his bank in November 1989, saying it was to pay Mr James Gogarty, according to yesterday's Irish Independent. The story was apparently based on material submitted by the bank, Anglo Irish Bank, to the tribunal.

After tribunal lawyers raised the leak at the beginning of yesterday's hearing, the chairman, Mr Justice Flood, excused Mr Gogarty from giving evidence for the day and called a series of witnesses to answer questions on the leak.

These included Mr Bailey, his brother Thomas, their solicitor, a banking director of Anglo Irish, Mr Tom Browne, and the Baileys' public relations consultant, Mr Pat Heneghan.

The latest leak follows a series of disclosures in the media before Christmas, which seriously damaged the credibility of the tribunal and led to complaints from the Baileys' legal representatives, among others.

In December, Mr Justice Flood called in the Garda to investigate the unauthorised publication of Mr Gogarty's affidavit to a Sunday newspaper.

However, unlike Mr Gogarty's affidavit which was circulated to a wide number of parties, the material on which the latest leak is based was known only to three parties - the tribunal, the Baileys and the bank. The chances of identifying the source of the leak are correspondingly greater.

Mr Michael Bailey has yet to explain to the tribunal why he gave Mr Gogarty a £50,000 cheque. This happened in August 1990, Mr Gogarty alleged last week. In his affidavit, Mr Bailey said he couldn't provide more information until he gave his oral evidence because of the danger this might end up in the media.

Yesterday, however, Mr Bailey found himself in the witness box, answering questions about his knowledge of confidential documents and his contacts, if any, with journalists.

Under cross-examination, Mr Bailey said he had never seen the statement furnished by the bank to the tribunal on the issue. It emerged in evidence this had been received by his solicitors last Monday, and by his barristers the following day.

However, Mr Browne, for the bank, told the tribunal Mr Bailey had telephoned him "within the last two weeks" to say he had seen the narrative statement from the bank, and was "happy" with it.

When Mr Bailey's testimony appeared to contradict this, Mr Browne was called back to the stand and he repeated that it was his understanding Mr Bailey was referring to the statement when he said he had seen it and was happy with its content.

Mr Brian O'Moore, for Mr Gogarty, asked Mr Bailey about his meeting early yesterday with Mr Browne. Mr Bailey said this was arranged the day before and was part of their regular business contacts.

Mr O'Moore asked who knew about the meeting with Mr Browne. Mr Bailey replied "no one".

Asked to consider his answer Mr Bailey said: "I advised Mr Allen (Mr Colm Allen SC, his counsel) last night".

At this meeting, Mr Bailey looked at notes written by a bank official in 1989 concerning the alleged payments to Mr Gogarty. He had seen these some months previously, he revealed.

Mr Bailey said he heard "rumblings," on Monday from Mr Heneghan about a possible story in the newspapers concerning payments from him to Mr Gogarty. However, he said he not given his public relations adviser any instructions on the matter.

Mr Eamonn Leahy SC, for the Baileys, said his clients had "no hand, act or part" in the leak.

Mr Leahy said he didn't want to be "jesuitical" in his denials on behalf of his clients and those working on their behalf. However, when pressed on who was working on their behalf, Mr Leahy repeatedly parried the question, until Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, intervened to point out Mr Heneghan's role.

Mr Heneghan said he had no access to legal documents and had never seen single documents of that type. The information certainly did not come from him or any of their side, Mr Heneghan said.

Mr Heneghan has attended every sitting of the planning tribunal. He represented Mr Larry Goodman at the beef tribunal, and was awarded costs of £162,000 when it was over.

Both Mr Bailey and his brother, Thomas, said they never had any contact with journalists.

Mr Thomas Bailey said he had not seen the statement made by his own bank to the tribunal; it had not been passed on to him by his solicitors.

When he read it in the witness box, he conceded there was nothing in it that was new to him. He said he learned this information through his brother.

By 6 p.m., the investigation was still incomplete. Even a woman who had held up placards concerning her planning dispute with Kildare County Council had gone home, her protest unnoticed in a furious afternoon's cross-examination.

Mr Justice Flood said he would resume the matter tomorrow. Mr Gogarty continues his evidence this morning.