A week of theatre at the castle

Mr Chairman, nothing could better illustrate the lack of objectivity and the lack of impartiality our clients have experienced since the opening of this [tribunal]. - Garrett Cooney, January 13th.

I have never suggested nor inferred that you, the sole member of the tribunal, have been biased in carrying out your functions. Garrett Cooney, February 26th

WHAT a difference a week makes in tribunal-land. A witness is arrested, the judge walks out, the main barrister is silenced, the Bar Council is called in, peace ensues and James Gogarty goes sick.

For all the burlesque and controversy, the week's events leave the chairman, Mr Justice Flood, in a stronger position than before. He has effectively faced down the challenge from Garrett Cooney, senior counsel for Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering, though not before both men went to the brink in a messy legal tangle.

Meanwhile, George Redmond went missing for a day from Dublin Castle and turned up that evening in Dublin Airport, his pockets and a bag stuffed with money. Half of Dublin knew about it within hours of his arrest by the Criminal Assets Bureau and Mr Redmond was left in an even trickier position than he was before.

Mr Redmond, who faces allegations from James Gogarty that he accepted bribes, was never going to be "star witness" material in this tribunal, even before the extraordinary events of last Friday week.

Now, however, the chairman and his team of lawyers must be hoping that Mr Redmond can be "encouraged" into providing more information than he has up to now. A previous attempt to get co-operation using a "carrot and stick" approach came to nothing; now the word is that the stick has got longer and the carrot is shrinking.

With the tribunal, the CAB and the Revenue Commissioners on his tail, Mr Redmond may eventually decide it is in his interests to co-operate. But it's not thought likely this will happen overnight.

The former assistant Dublin city and county manager greatly added to the theatre in Dublin Castle by turning up again this week, looking none the worst for his weekend in Harcourt Terrace Garda station.

Wearing the same polka-dot tie he had on for his ill-fated trip to the Isle of Man, an ebullient Mr Redmond chatted to tribunal attenders and even couldn't resist talking to the press.

Outside the hall, he bumped into Mr Gogarty and quipped: "The two of us side by side, wouldn't that make a lovely picture, Jim?" The 81-year-old Mr Gogarty never moved quicker to side-step that embrace.

During his day-trip to Douglas, Mr Redmond collected £200,000 from a number of accounts, but it's now clear that the £95,000 in bank drafts he was carrying were drawn on Irish financial institutions. It seems he put them in his wallet some time before and forgot about them.

Mr Gogarty had a good week, notwithstanding his illness yesterday. He used a fourday break over the weekend to swat up on Garda statements he had not read in detail before. As a result, he dealt with Mr Cooney's cross-examination with ease.

A tribunal is not a court. It makes its own rules, as Mr Justice Flood has averred on several occasions. The trouble is that Mr Gogarty has invented a few rules of his own. One is to make long, rambling answers. Another is to attack his former employers, the Murphys, whenever possible.

With each day, Mr Cooney's frustration grew. Having scored a few minor points the previous week, he had been looking forward to discrediting Mr Gogarty's story in a major way. Now he was facing the appalling vista of fruitless weeks of cross-examination. He couldn't even pin the witness down on the exact date of the infamous meeting in Ray Burke's home in June 1989.

He complained about "aggressive" answers. He threatened to go to the High Court. Finally, he accused the chairman of failing to stop the interruptions to his cross-examination.

The chairman's patience snapped. He demanded an apology for this "insolent and insulting" remark. To applause from the public gallery, and a few cries of "hear, hear", he walked out.

Mr Cooney provocatively joined in the clapping. "Round of applause, Mr Chairman," he remarked, but Mr Justice Flood was already out the door.

There followed 48 hours of unprecedented conflict between a leading barrister and the chairman of a tribunal. Mr Justice Flood removed Mr Cooney's right to address the tribunal and Mr Cooney said it would be "hypocritical and insincere" of him to apologise.

Yet within a day, he had effectively done so. The word "sorry" was never used, but those who witnessed Mr Cooney's expressions of regret over the dispute were in no doubt that he had climbed down.

Crucial to this was the Bar Council's palpable distaste for a dispute involving two senior legal figures. As the council kicked to touch, it was apparent that Mr Cooney's best chance of reversing the decision was in the High Court.

However, in recent months, the courts have been inclined to give the tribunals their head. Mr Cooney's chances must have appeared slim.

JMSE must have been greatly displeased, too, that their legal team had pulled out, and not because of any instructions from clients but arising out of a professional dispute of interest to barristers only. Having invested so much in their three-man team of senior counsels over the past 18 months, JMSE executives could hardly have relished the prospect of being called as witnesses without the protection of a barrister.

The chairman's game of bluff seems to have worked. A few months ago, on the issues of the discovery of documents and Mr Gogarty's cross-examination, he conceded ground under pressure from the two building firms, JMSE and Bovale. This, despite the fact that the tribunal believes the two parties are dragging their heels on co-operation.

This time, he stood his ground. Mr Cooney will think twice about incurring the chairman's wrath again.

The planning tribunal has been portrayed in some quarters - by the same people who complained it was leaking confidential information - as a pantomime. It is anything but.

There has been an element of theatre, and what of it? Hundreds of people come every day to see democracy in action. They like what they see.

The only reason Mr Gogarty's evidence is being taken first is because of his age and ill-health. When he is finished, we shall hear the evidence of JMSE, Bovale, and Mr Burke.

Away from the hub-bub in the tribunal hall, its lawyers have been quietly gathering masses of information on the financial affairs of politicians and others who are accused of corruption. None of this information has leaked, perhaps because it hasn't been circulated. But the word is that this material is "dynamite" which will have major political repercussions. Perhaps the real show hasn't even begun.