Dunlop's credibility questioned by accused councillors

Politicians who are accused of corruption have made their most determined effort yet to halt the Flood tribunal's investigation of Mr Frank Dunlop's allegations.

Cllr Liam Cosgrave yesterday called on the tribunal to stand down its investigation into allegations by Mr Dunlop. Through his legal team, the former Fine Gael senator warned of an appeal to the High Court if the tribunal ruled against him.

He was supported by lawyers for other councillors accused of corruption. Counsel for the late Cllr Tom Hand, Mr Cormac Ó Dúlacháin, accused the tribunal of operating a "witness protection programme" for Mr Dunlop.

Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Mr Cosgrave, said the tribunal had failed to investigate Mr Dunlop's credibility as a witness, given the fact that he lied when he first gave evidence in April 2000.

The politicians are also demanding access to Mr Dunlop's bank records and his private interviews with tribunal lawyers, which they say could help clear their names.

Tribunal lawyers rejected the politicians' demands. Mr John Gallagher SC said the tribunal would test all allegations without restriction "at the appropriate time".

Further evidence from Mr Dunlop has been postponed to allow Mr Gallagher to complete his reply today.

Mr Dunlop has alleged he paid bribes to Mr Cosgrave and eight other politicians in return for their votes on the rezoning of land in Carrickmines in south Dublin. Mr Cosgrave, who is alleged to have received at least £15,000, denies the claim.

Mr Dunlop told the tribunal last week he now had nothing to gain by not telling the truth, but Mr O'Higgins said anyone who believed this was "completely and utterly naïve".

There was clear prima facie evidence that Mr Dunlop had committed a number of criminal offences, including perjury, corruption and fraudulent conversion, he said. He was also in a "relationship of compromise" with the Revenue Commissioners.

"If he has to face the music on these matters, it will be in his interest to say he co-operated here. And the more people he implicates and the longer this tribunal sits, the longer is postponed the evil day when these issues are dealt with."

Mr O'Higgins asked whether the tribunal had referred these apparent breaches to the DPP. If it had not, it should explain why not.

He said the tribunal could not decide on Mr Dunlop's credibility without a thorough investigation of why he had so comprehensively lied in the first place.

He accused Mr Gallagher of questioning the witness for 7½ days "without mentioning the war", that is, why Mr Dunlop had lied in his initial evidence. "At 12.29 p.m. [on the last day of Mr Dunlop's examination] the war was mentioned - and by lunchtime it was all over." This approach had shocked his client "to the core", Mr O'Higgins said.

"Frank Dunlop wasn't even asked: 'why did you do this? Who stands to gain? Who stands to lose from your evidence'?" Instead, Mr Dunlop spun a "sophisticated web of deceit" and was permitted to claim an equal status of corruption with those he allegedly gave money to. Last year's interim report of the tribunal had been "absolutely devastating" for those found to be involved in corrupt practices, counsel pointed out.

"For some of them, it will go with them to their graves and \ on their gravestones. The potential fallout from the tribunal can have serious, far-reaching and permanent damage for those who are named as having acted inappropriately."

Certain protections applied in a court of law, but not in a tribunal, he said. "The fact that these don't exist, that the rules of evidence are not observed and that processes are laxer places an even higher onus on the tribunal to discharge its responsibilities with full fairness toward all parties summoned to account for their actions."

If ever there was a witness for whom the test of credibility was important, it was Mr Dunlop, he said.

Mr Dunlop had "systematically and comprehensively lied and lied and lied". He had "a proven track record of 10-15 years on the take". There was a danger that he could "intermesh" innocent parties into his crimes.

Mr O'Higgins said there was going to be no "massive breakthrough" which would expose Mr Dunlop. "There isn't a single person here who could disprove an allegation that they took money in cash unless they were in Barbados at a wedding with 10 or 50 guests."

In his replying submission, Mr Gallagher said that many of Mr O'Higgins's points had already been dealt with in previous rulings by the tribunal.

Interviews carried out by tribunal lawyers were bound by rules of confidentiality, he stressed.