The High Court will rule later this month on an application by the widow of the late TD Liam Lawlor to prevent the Mahon tribunal making serious findings of misconduct against either herself and her husband unless proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Hazel Lawlor also wants the court to require the tribunal to fund “effective” legal representation for her before it.
The hearing of her judicial review action concluded today after four days before Mr Justice Roderick Murphy, who reserved his judgment. He described the matter as urgent and said he would give his decision on Monday July 28th.
Ms Lawlor, Somerton House Lucan, Co Dublin, is a witness in the Quarryvale II module of the tribunal and she was granted limited representation by tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon in November 2005. Her involvement is limited to providing evidence to the tribunal in relation to lodgments made to her personal accounts between 1991 and 1995.
The court has heard the estate of Mr Lawlor, who died in a car crash in Moscow in October 2005, potentially faces a legal bill of €600,000 arising out of separate contempt proceedings brought by the tribunal against him for failing to comply with orders of discovery.
In closing submissions for Ms Lawlor, Eoin McGonigal SC said the tribunal is not a civil proceeding and the tribunal required to set a standard of proof of its own when dealing with matters relating to Mr and Ms Lawlor.
That standard of proof should be flexible according to the circumstances of the tribunal’s inquiries, the allegations made and the position of persons affected by those, counsel argued. The fact that Mr Lawlor is deceased was also a matter the tribunal should have regard to and his side would contend the tribunal cannot make findings against a dead person.
The Supreme Court had stated in decisions relating to other tribunals that a tribunal’s findings, while “legally sterile”, might still might have important and damaging consequences for a person’s reputation, he added. The fact they were legally sterile was “of no consequence in the wider world”.
If the tribunal appied a lower standard of proof, the chances of injustice were higher especially as there was no means of appeal, he also argued.
Mr McGonigal said other tribunals have applied a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in certain situations. When one saw the effect tribunals have had even before they made findings, such as in relation to general elections, it was “quite incredible” for the tribunal to apply a standard of proof based on the balance of probabilities.
