The High Court has ordered that Mr Liam Lawlor TD serve a further month in jail and has fined him another £10,000 (€12,700) for his continued failure to provide the Flood tribunal with the financial records and documents it wants.
The new 28-day prison term is to take affect from noon on Tuesday, giving Mr Lawlor's lawyers time to go to the Supreme Court on Monday to seek a stay on yesterday's order pending an appeal.
But in deciding whether they want to appeal, Mr Lawlor's legal team will have to bear in mind that it would be open to the Supreme Court to increase the sentence in the same way it would be open to the court to overturn the High Court findings.
The one-month jail sentence is the third prison term to have been imposed on the West Dublin TD. He spent a week in prison in January 2001, and served a second week earlier this month. It is also the second time he has been fined € 12,700 (£10,000) .
The new €12,700 fine is to be paid by March 12th. If he does not pay by then, the TD will serve a further month in jail and interest will accrue at the rate of 8 per cent. The judge said the fine was in amelioration of the prison sentence he had in mind. He also ordered Mr Lawlor to make further discovery on oath of certain documents. He refused a stay on yesterday's order.
Mr Justice Smyth said Mr Lawlor, by his conduct in failing to comply with court orders, had compounded his contempt and was in disregard of orders of the tribunal and court. He was not exempt from compliance with the law. Court orders had to be obeyed "and will be obeyed".
He went on to quote a couplet from the poet Dryden and said Mr Lawlor might do well to reflect on it. It stated: "For lawful power is still superior found, when long driven back, at length it stands its ground."
Mr Lawlor has incurred huge costs in the long-running proceedings. Before this week, he had incurred costs estimated at more than €500,000. No order has been made yet for the costs of the five days of this week's proceedings but if he has to pay them also his bill will rise substantially.
The judge said the necessity for full discovery had been agitated between the parties for more than a year. The convoluted and Byzantine complexity with which it was apparently sought bore out Dr Johnson's observation: "There is no transaction which offers stronger temptation to sophistication and fallacy than epistolary intercourse."
Mr Justice Smyth said if Mr Lawlor had read Machiavelli he would have read him seriously and carefully and have learned: "A wise prince should observe these rules: he should never take things easily in times of peace but rather use the latter assiduously in order to be able to reap the profit in times of adversity."
He said disclosure by Mr Lawlor was often late, thereby diminishing the expedition with which the tribunal could function and was, therefore, a form of non-compliance.
Before the judgment, Mr John Trainor asked that if his client had to serve another jail term that he not have to do so until after the general election, which was likely to be held in May.
He said Mr Lawlor had been a Dáil member for almost 20 years. If he had to serve the sentence before the election, there would be a loss of representation for his clients. He had not yet formed a view as to whether he would stand in the next election.
If the sentence could not be deferred until then, counsel said, he had been instructed that Mr Lawlor not be jailed until after a motion of censure concerning him had been completed in the Dail. Mr Lawlor wished to be present and contribute to such a debate. Mr Trainor also said that his client might wish to appeal to the Supreme Court. The normal motion day (for dealing with such matters) was Friday, and counsel asked for a stay on any sentence until then.
The judge said then when sentencing Mr Lawlor previously, he was very careful to ensure he served a sentence when the Dáil was in recess. He did not know when the next general election would be and he did not see how he could deal with the situation on that basis. The position of the Houses of the Oireachtas was a matter for them. He must apply the law as it stood to all and sundry, without fear or favour.
The case was one of civil contempt. Mr Lawlor had never been sent from the court as a common criminal.
Mr Justice Smyth read out the 11 "deficiencies" alleged by the tribunal in Mr Lawlor's affidavit of discovery following his delivery of an affidavit sworn on September 7th.
The first was that critical documentation relating to Liechtenstein accounts had now been produced by the deputy for the first time, without any adequate explanation as to why it had not been discovered before now.
Another complaint was that missing from the Liechtenstein documentation now provided were vouchers of lodgment transactions and that it was not apparent there had been any requests from Mr Lawlor or his solicitors for such documentation.
Another "deficiency" claimed by the tribunal was that Mr Lawlor had failed to make any discovery of headed notepaper furnished to him by Michael Quinn in the names of Industrial Consultants Associates, Industrial Consultants International Ltd and Comex Trading Corporation.
It was also submitted the TD had not discovered invoices issued under the names of various corporate entities to which he had referred in an affidavit.
The tribunal also claimed Mr Lawlor had failed to make discovery of or produce any documents concerning, and had only now revealed the existence of, bank accounts operated on his behalf within the State by Mr Niall Lawlor (his son). Mr Lawlor had failed to comply with a court order in relation to six US bank accounts.