Redmond to meet tribunal legal team over evidence

The former assistant Dublin city and county manager, Mr George Redmond, will today meet members of the Flood planning tribunal…

The former assistant Dublin city and county manager, Mr George Redmond, will today meet members of the Flood planning tribunal legal team in the presence of his solicitor, it emerged last night.

Today's meeting follows reports that Mr Redmond has begun informal talks with tribunal lawyers in recent days about the nature of the testimony he will give.

The Sunday Tribune reported yesterday that Mr Redmond is believed to have discussed with tribunal lawyers the possibility of making a substantial addition to the written statement he has already submitted. It suggested that he had "explosive evidence which could have serious implications for political and business life".

At the last public sitting of the tribunal on Thursday, Mr Redmond's legal team was absent, and he personally defended himself against allegations of corruption made by Mr James Gogarty from the witness-box. Since then, it is understood that Mr Redmond, who is regarded as a major witness, has had a meeting with his solicitor. It is expected that he will meet the tribunal legal team today with his solicitor.

READ MORE

The presence of Mr Redmond's solicitor at the meeting with the legal team suggests that any discussions, possibly relating to additional statements or his future testimony, will be on a more formal footing than the informal discussions which are believed to have taken place in recent weeks.

Mr Redmond is among parties who have already furnished a statement to the tribunal. He has also submitted a number of documents. It is understood that at least some of these statements contain a full narrative, as required by the tribunal, concerning the relevant events, but no additional information which went beyond the parameters of the allegations Mr Gogarty has made.

However, within its widened terms of reference, the tribunal is empowered to investigate any acts associated with the planning process which may, in its opinion, amount to corruption.

Mr Redmond has been seated in the public section of the tribunal nearly every day since it began. For most of that time his legal team, led by Mr Kevin Feeney SC, with counsel Mr Angus Buttan shaw, instructed by solicitors Anthony Harris & Co, has had some representative present, sitting on the last row of benches for counsel. However, last week, when Mr Gogarty levelled his accusations, the entire legal team was absent.

On Thursday, because of his lack of legal representation on that day, Mr Redmond made the unusual move of intervening twice to defend himself against the allegations being made by Mr Gogarty.

Mr Gogarty alleged that Mr Redmond had sought a sum in return for planning favours, worth about £15,000. The witness said that in 1988 Mr Redmond had been expecting to get 10 per cent of any saving on a levy involving a planning application by the Murphy group, and this would have amounted to roughly £15,000.

Mr Gogarty also alleged that Mr Redmond prepared the letter which a JMSE subsidiary was to send to Dublin County Council in order to avoid paying any extra levy; that he asked Mr Gogarty if JMSE had any painters to do a job on his house and that he believed he had an agreement with an executive of JMSE to work as a consultant for the company after taking early retirement.

Mr Redmond defended himself against the allegations. Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, then read out parts of the statement which Mr Redmond has made to the tribunal. This was another surprise development, as it was the first time that the tribunal team had quoted a witness statement in such a way.

Mr Redmond denied that he had asked the Murphy group for money in return for assistance. He said that he had no control over executive functions in the planning department, that he had never met Mr Joseph Murphy jnr and that he had not asked if the Murphy group would paint his house.

In his second intervention Mr Redmond asked that his statement be read out in full. It was the counsel for the Murphy group, Mr Garrett Cooney SC, who objected to the statement being read in part. He claimed it was "cherrypicking" and was being presented to Mr Gogarty to give him an opportunity to discredit Mr Redmond.