THE SUPREME Court says it is “a cause of concern” that former planning tribunal chairman Mr Justice Fergus Flood had edited interviews and statements of a key witness, James Gogarty, in a manner which cut out serious allegations by Mr Gogarty against at least four “prominent” persons.
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said this potentially “explosive” material included some “extremely grave” claims of impropriety, it was very relevant to the issue of the credibility of Mr Gogarty, who has since died, and was concealed by the tribunal “without justification”.
The material was not disclosed by the tribunal to directors of Joseph Murphy Structural Engineers (JMSE) for their defence before the tribunal of allegations by Mr Gogarty, the key witness against JMSE, relating to payments to former government minister Ray Burke and former Dublin City Council assistant manager George Redmond, he noted.
The material was only disclosed shortly before the hearing of High Court proceedings by Joseph Murphy jnr and Frank Reynolds, chairman and managing director of JMSE, and that company, against the tribunal.
In withholding that material, the tribunal knew, “as any lawyer must have known, they were gravely hampering the appellants in making their defence”, Mr Justice Hardiman said. “It is chilling to reflect that a poorer person, treated in the same fashion by the tribunal, could not have afforded to seek this vindication.”
Mr Justice Hardiman said the discovered material showed Mr Gogarty apparently made statements to the tribunal or to others alleging “serious improprieties” against at least four other persons, one of whom had since died.
The most immediately relevant allegation was that Mr Gogarty claimed to know, from a named source, that money was paid in cash not just to Mr Burke but to another politician in connection with a named site, and the two politicians had co-operated to bring about a desired result, he said.
He was not proposing to name the other politician, the site or the date but the relevance to matters before the tribunal was “obvious”.
The others against whom allegations were made were not as prominent as the second politician but were well-known in professional, commercial and political circles.
The judge had “absolutely no reason” to believe the allegations had any truth to them. Given their constitutional right to their good name, he intended to presume the claims were false. However, that merely emphasised the importance of this material.
He further noted the tribunal had agreed before the court it had resolved every single conflict of fact against the JMSE side. However, it was important to note the JMSE side had chosen to challenge not the substantive findings by the tribunal against them, including of involvement in the making of corrupt payments, but only the finding on costs.
