ANALYSIS: The lack of physical proof of alleged bribes will likely be questioned by the tribunal next year, writes Paul Cullen
The Flood tribunal has risen for the Christmas break, leaving the politicians implicated in Frank Dunlop's bribery plot with a lot to think about.
Mr Dunlop has delivered a solid performance in his first four days in the witness-box, carefully reinforcing the thrust of his sensational evidence of over two years ago while avoiding loose remarks that could come back to haunt him during cross-examination.
The precision of his evidence tends to impress, along with his carefully argued contention that a "nexus" of county councillors was operating a "system" of corruption with highly structured rules. Diary entries or bank transactions back up some of his story, but mostly he is relying on his own recollection.
This week's evidence added little to our store of knowledge about alleged corruption on Dublin county council, but Mr Dunlop's pen-pictures of grasping councillors allegedly scooping up wads of cash in Conways pub or the lobby of the council offices will leave a lasting impression.
Some flaws and cracks are beginning to appear in his evidence, however, which will doubtless be explored more when lawyers for the councillors question him next month.
For a start, there is virtually no physical evidence of the bribes he claims he made. There are no witnesses, no receipts and no other forms of documentary evidence for the alleged payments. How, then, can Mr Dunlop be certain of the amounts that were asked for and paid over, particularly when he was dealing with so many councillors in respect of so many different rezonings?
Yesterday, he said he even made a loss on some of the rezonings he worked on. How does he know this if he didn't keep records? It seems incredible that he had no written note of the mind-boggling amounts of cash he was taking in and paying out.
Furthermore, what is the distinction between a bribe and an acceptable political donation? Does this exist solely in Mr Dunlop's mind? Is it not possible that, at least in some cases, the giver of money could intend it as a bribe while the taker accepts it as a genuine political contribution?
Then there is the case of former Independent councillor, John O'Halloran, a virulently pro-development politician who once referred to objectors to rezoning as "environmental terrorists".
According to Mr Dunlop, part of the £5,000 he says he gave Cllr O'Halloran in 1992/93 was paid for his support of the Paisley Park rezoning in Carrickmines. Yet Cllr O'Halloran didn't even attend the meeting at which the rezoning was discussed and voted upon.
So why would Mr Dunlop throw good money at an absentee councillor in respect of a motion that was already lost and, he felt, could not be revived? He explained that the councillor claimed he would have supported Paisley Park if he had been paid to do so. He just hadn't asked.
Mr Liam Lawlor's vote against rezoning in the Carrickmines Valley in 1991 is also hard to explain - though Mr Dunlop made an attempt to do so - given the allegation that he had a financial interest in the land. If this is so, Mr Lawlor is an even bigger poker player than we know already.
In Mr Dunlop's favour, it is very difficult indeed to see what he could gain by telling the tribunal anything other than the truth. His business and reputation are destroyed, his legal prospects are grim and his admissions of involvement in corruption are refreshing and frank. Motive is all on his side, whereas the alleged behaviour of councillors fits in with the patterns previously alleged by journalists and others.
The tribunal itself is facing a few challenges of its own. The withdrawal from the proceedings of Jackson Way, the company at the centre of the bribery allegations, threatens to make a nonsense of the second half of the tribunal's current investigations. These will look at the ownership of this mysterious, publicity-shy English company.
By now, the tribunal has shown how effectively it can secure co-operation from even the most reluctant Irish witnesses. However, it is having less success with overseas residents, particularly those in offshore havens such as the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Jackson Way has perfected this form of obstruction; it has disengaged its Irish solicitors while its co-owner, businessman Jim Kennedy, has moved offshore and divested himself of his Irish interests. It could be setting an example for others to follow.
The tribunal resumes on January 21st.