The High Court will decide today whether the Dublin West TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, should serve a further term in jail because of his alleged failure to provide sufficient documents and records of his financial transactions to the Flood tribunal.
Mr Lawlor has served two weeks of the three-month prison sentence imposed on him last year for failure to meet the tribunal's requirements. The sentence had been suspended on condition that he comply with the tribunal's requirements.
Following submissions by both sides yesterday, Mr Justice Smyth said he would give a decision on the matter this afternoon.
Earlier yesterday Mr Lawlor's lawyers decided not to apply to the Supreme Court to challenge Mr Justice Smyth's decision on Wednesday that the High Court case could proceed.
In closing submissions yesterday Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the tribunal, said Mr Lawlor had been guilty of a significant and continuing breach of the court order requiring him to produce sufficient documents to the tribunal. He said the tribunal was not proposing any particular action, but Mr Lawlor's actions were "significantly more serious" than what the court had identified last July (when it imposed a seven-day sentence).
Documents were even now being produced, 18 months or perhaps more after they should have been made available, and it was reasonable to infer that further documents required to be discovered, counsel said. The application currently before the court was concerned with whether the obligations on Mr Lawlor which were the price of suspending the prison sentence had been met.
For the first time, it had been disclosed that Mr Lawlor had used accounts in the name of his son through which it appeared very substantial sums of Mr Lawlor's monies had passed. No one could be in any doubt that these were significantly discoverable and not trivial matters, but it appeared to be suggested that it was only in the last short while that the existence of these accounts were recollected, Mr Clarke said. That was not a credible explanation.
Mr Lawlor had said he was under pressure from his own banks and therefore did not want money to be easily available to them and in those circumstances wished to have a safe haven.
However, Mr Clarke said, these were not just accounts involving significant sums of money but significant sums in memorable circumstances. They were not just ordinary money coming in and out of an account but money about which Mr Lawlor had to take steps to protect from bank creditors.
The same general principle applied to some of the other accounts about which information was now emerging. Apparently documents had become available yesterday regarding transactions involving a joint account in the name of himself and his other son.
These were only now emerging under the threat of a contempt-of-court hearing.
Mr John Trainor SC, for Mr Lawlor. said it was accepted that accounts in the name of Mr Lawlor's son, Niall, fell within the court discovery order, and Mr Lawlor also accepted there were additional documents still coming from the US in relation to some accounts.
Mr Lawlor had made very careful and sustained efforts to comply with his obligations, and these were continuing. It could not be argued there had been a lack of co-operation with the tribunal by Mr Lawlor. The court should consider giving Mr Lawlor credit.
Mr Trainor said they believed that aspects of the tribunal's approach to Mr Lawlor's circumstances had been most unfair and betrayed almost an unwillingness on the part of the tribunal to give Mr Lawlor any credit for his assistance. The tribunal had portrayed that assistance as negatively as possible.
As these were contempt proceedings, if the court had any doubt as to where the truth lay, then that benefit should go to Mr Lawlor and not be used against him.
Counsel said there were many issues which could have been cleared up through further correspondence between the tribunal and his client. Mr Lawlor had offered to go to Liechtenstein with a representative of the tribunal to see what documents it had. There was nothing more he could do.
His client had been accused of making reactive discovery, but that criticism was wholly unfounded.