Favours-for-cash deal denied by Burke's legal team

Mr Ray Burke accepted a payment of £30,000 in his home in June 1989 but no favours were asked or given and he subsequently opposed the rezoning of part of the lands, Mr Burke's new legal team told the Flood Tribunal yesterday. Cross-examining the chief witness, Mr James Gogarty, who says he believes the figure handed over was £80,000, Mr Joseph Finnegan SC, for Mr Burke, said it was Mr Burke's recollection that not even a cup of tea was offered on the occasion.

Mr Burke's version of events was that the men sat in armchairs around a coffee table while Mr Gogarty says they sat around a dining-type table as Mr Burke put two envelopes into a sideboard.

Mr Finnegan told the tribunal that it was "not his [Mr Burke's] habit to furnish tea" and that the meeting had lasted just 10 minutes. It was also Mr Burke's recollection that the meeting was in the morning and that no favour was asked or promised. No discussion of the lands took place at all.

Mr Finnegan said Mr Burke said that Mr Joe Murphy jnr was not at the meeting, backing up the version of events supplied at the tribunal by lawyers for Mr Murphy and Mr Michael Bailey.

Mr Burke also said that the meeting took place on June 8th or 9th, 1989 and that he never gave any commitments "good, bad or indifferent of any sort" to Mr Murphy snr. Mr Burke knew Mr Bailey because Mr Bailey contributed to fundraising events in the constituency in a modest way. "That's the only relationship they had," insisted Mr Finnegan.

In his earlier evidence Mr Gogarty had suggested that Mr Burke acknowledged his role securing planning permission for developers, by commenting that he had never let them down. Referring to this, Mr Finnegan said this type of assistance to developers "had never happened. He'll say that never, never happened. And you can't say that it did, can you Mr Gogarty?"

Mr Gogarty replied that "it is only hearsay but all that I've heard indicated that there are questions to be asked about what happened over the years, you know".

Mr Finnegan continued: "Mr Burke will say that not alone was he never asked to involve himself in the rezoning of the lands referred to in the schedule, or to do anything about planning permission in relation to them - or do anything at all in relation to them, but as a matter of fact he never, ever did anything to support rezoning or planning or anything in relation to those lands. "

Mr Gogarty replied: "Well, I get a bit confused then because of the letter from Bailey - the famous letter -."

"That's what Mr Bailey said, not what Mr Burke said," Mr Finnegan responded.

Mr Finnegan went on to say that there was only one occasion in which Mr Burke may have been able to assist in the rezoning of the lands in question, and that was in 1993, when there were rezoning proposals. "His evidence will be that he in fact opposed plans to rezone lands which included apparently some of these lands." He disclosed it would be Mr Burke's testimony that he was given £20,000 in cash and a £10,000 cheque made out to cash. Mr Burke has told the Dail that he was given £30,000 in cash.

In response to the suggestion that Mr Burke had opposed the rezoning of land, Mr Gogarty said that "politicians change their mind a lot". He agreed there was no discussion of the lands at the meeting with Mr Burke, but he insisted that this was because Mr Bailey and Mr Murphy jnr had told him to leave that to them. He also insisted that Mr Burke had remarked that he was familiar with the schedule of lands and knew what he was supposed to do.

On the subject of the money, Mr Gogarty said Mr Burke "has given an awful lot of versions". He asked: "Is he admitting that there is a cheque now?". When he was told that Mr Burke now says there was a cheque for £10,000, Mr Gogarty said: "Oh Jesus, that's good, that's good. We are getting somewhere. He is admitting it now. Jesus, they broke my heart over years denying it, you know."