The findings of the Mahon tribunal, which concluded - on the basis of probability - that corrupt payments were made by Frank Dunlop to four councillors and other politicians on behalf of property owner Jim Kennedy, did not surprise. Neither did the suggestion that those involved may challenge the outcome in court. After all, they had just been exonerated of criminal charges because Mr Dunlop, the main prosecution witness, had been unable to give evidence.
The tribunal did what was required. The venality of politicians, developers and the planning system in Dublin was utterly exposed. The work was slow and expensive, but conclusive. Failure to assuage public anger through the prosecution of corrupt individuals lies elsewhere, deep within the criminal justice, political and legal systems. In all, four people went to prison for various offences. But the great majority of those implicated walked free and expect to have their legal costs paid by the State. The bill may come to €250m.
The Mahon tribunal produced five separate reports identifying corrupt practices. As with the conclusions of other tribunals, its documents were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions by government. But because the Supreme Court had ruled that the findings of a tribunal were "legally sterile" and inadmissible in criminal cases, it amounted to a window-dressing exercise. The exploratory clock was reset to zero. Evidence given in public and under oath could not be re-used. The Garda Siochána, lacking the financial expertise and investigative powers of a tribunal, was at a serious disadvantage. Political and other sensitivities may also have contributed to a lack of appetite, as happened with cases of clerical sex abuse.
A succession of tax amnesties and light-touch regulation helped to create a culture of impunity in the upper echelons of Irish society. Exposure for fraud and illegal activity amongst businessmen was, at worst, followed by a fine and public embarrassment. Theft from the State through tax evasion was widespread. The courts were - and still are - used as mechanisms to delay and to frustrate the application of justice. In this context, Dail reform is just part of a wider, necessary process.
A recasting of the Constitution has been talked about for years. A new document would not invalidate existing case law but it could encourage the development of social solidarity. Powerful individuals have consistently used the Courts to establish and expand their privileges, even as the balancing rights of “the common good”, contained in the 1937 document, have languished by default. The question is: should this state of affairs continue and would constitutional and administrative reforms, with the emphasis on creating a just society, contribute to public wellbeing?