Flying insults set the tone again

Mr Ray Burke is now unlikely to take the witness stand at the Flood tribunal until the middle of next week, following yesterday's decision to defer further evidence because of two impending High Court rulings.

Mr Justice Flood and his team of lawyers must be awaiting today's ruling in a case brought by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB), and tomorrow's involving the Fianna Fail TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, with some trepidation.

If either decision goes against the tribunal - and the betting is that at least one will - its work could be severely crippled. Victory for CAB in its case relating to investigations into the former assistant Dublin city and county manager, Mr George Redmond, would effectively stymie the tribunal's examination of Mr Redmond's affairs.

If Mr Lawlor wins his case against a tribunal order requiring him to come and answer their questions, the effect could be even more calamitous. Hundreds of such orders have been made over the past year-and-a-half, and if one is struck out, all of them may tumble.

Mr Lawlor is also resisting attempts by the tribunal to secure information on the companies he is involved with and the money he has received from the property company, Arlington Securities. His success or otherwise in these efforts will be closely followed by others from whom the tribunal is seeking private information.

Whatever happens in the High Court today and tomorrow, both rulings can be expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Only then will it be clear what the ramifications for the tribunal's work are.

What is clear is that the tribunal is sinking once again into a mire partially of its own making.

It is true that Mr Justice Flood has seen his work come under unprecedented legal attack from virtually every major figure under investigation. But the tribunal itself seems unable to move up a gear and deal with its witnesses with alacrity.

From the start, it was a case of the tail wagging the dog, as the antagonism between Mr James Gogarty and the Murphy group was allowed to set the tone.

It's been the same again this week, as the hearings revisited old grievances with little obvious relevance to the issue of planning corruption. Yesterday, Mr Gogarty's solicitor, Mr Gerard Sheedy, completed his evidence after two days, with the atmosphere once again marked by exchanges of allegations and schoolyard insults between the barristers.

At one stage Mr Garret Cooney SC, for the Murphy group, accused Mr Sheedy of unprofessional conduct, and claimed he was "in a conspiracy" with Mr Gogarty to "pull a fast one" on the Murphy group.

Mr Sheedy denied the accusations, which were made in relation to an agreement Mr Gogarty had to negotiate monies due from the ESB. He then invited Mr Cooney to make them outside the protection of the tribunal room.

Later, Mr Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Gogarty, pointed out that Mr Cooney had based at least part of his argument on a false premise, and he accused him of using "a trick" on Mr Sheedy.

Mr Cooney later conceded that he had got it wrong, and he apologised.

The tribunal resumes on Monday at 10.30 a.m.