Solicitor says his level of recollection has improved

The Dublin solicitor who failed to appear before the Flood tribunal in September has said his recollection has improved since he was first asked to provide information to the tribunal.

Mr John Caldwell told the tribunal yesterday that his "level of recollection" was quite different now that he had read the tribunal transcripts and briefing documents.

Mr Caldwell, a former partner in Binchys solicitors, denied flouting orders from the tribunal to produce documents. He also denied treating the tribunal "in a cavalier fashion" and said he had "the utmost respect" for the tribunal.

Mr Caldwell "went to ground" in response to a summons, the tribunal heard in September. He attempted to resign as a solicitor and told the tribunal he was not an Irish citizen and no longer resided here. He later agreed to give evidence after the tribunal brought the matter to the High Court and threatened High Court proceedings.

Yesterday, Ms Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, said the witness had "utterly" failed to comply with two orders issued by the tribunal earlier this year. Mr Caldwell replied to the first order by saying he had "nothing to add" to an affidavit filed by another partner in Binchys, Mr Michael O'Hanrahan. He did not reply to the second order.

The two orders from the tribunal sought information and documents from Mr Caldwell under 23 different headings, most of them covering his dealings with the builders Brennan and McGowan. Mr Caldwell set up a trust for Mr Tom Brennan in Liechtenstein, and he also acted for Canio, a company owned by the two builders and Mr John Finnegan. Canio paid £75,000 to Mr Ray Burke in 1984 and 1985.

Ms Dillon said Mr Caldwell had been a solicitor since 1980, and was an international financial consultant.

The witness said he had recently retired as a solicitor. He regarded himself as "a businessman".

The tribunal has written to him in connection with allegations of payments to politicians in relation to a company, Jackson Way Properties. However, Ms Dillon said this matter would not be dealt with at this time.

In March, the tribunal wrote to Mr Caldwell seeking an affidavit under 15 different headings. Ms Dillon said he had failed to comply with this order, but Mr Caldwell argued that he had dealt with the substance of the order by drawing on Mr O'Hanrahan's affidavit. Asked why he failed to comply with the tribunal's second order, issued in August, Mr Caldwell said he "didn't believe it was a matter I had to deal with". He thought the matters would be dealt with in evidence. He didn't believe the order was still "extant". Mr Caldwell said he regretted not having given any explanation until now.

Ms Dillon pointed out that Mr Caldwell had elected not to turn up to give evidence in September. Had he not been "persuaded" to come to the witness-box, the tribunal would not be getting any explanation.

In relation to many of the matters into which the tribunal is inquiring, Mr Caldwell said he had no recollection. He denied he had power to instruct lawyers in Liechtenstein to produce documents relating to Mr Brennan's trust or bank accounts, which Mr Caldwell set up.