There were robust exchanges in the Mahon tribunal this morning as former Fianna Fáil TD Mr Liam Lawlor defended himself against accusations of forging an invoice.
|
|
Mr Liam Lawlor
|
Mr Lawlor was asked by counsel for tribunal, Mr Des O'Neill SC, how he came to have an invoice for £100,000 on Seddon's notepaper to give to Mr John Barrett of Maplewood Developments.
The question was prompted by evidence to the tribunal yesterday from Mr Anthony Seddon, Mr Lawlor's lawyer with offices in London and Prague, who said the document was a forgery, did not come from this office and was not prepared by his staff.
Mr O'Neill put it to Mr Lawlor that he had previously told the tribunal this document was prepared for him by a member of Seddon's staff in Prague at his request. Mr Lawlor replied that is was his understanding was that it was a Seddons document.
But Mr O'Neill put it to Mr Lawlor that this statement was untrue. "You could not have given an instruction to a member of Seddon's in Prague and London".
Asked about this apparent discrepancy, Mr Lawlor insisted the document was prepared at his request, although he added that he just "didn't have a clue" where it was done.
Chairman of the tribunal Judge Alan Mahon then put it to Mr Lawlor that following Mr Seddon's claim the invoice was not an authentic document, "either he [Mr Seddon] is lying or you are lying?"
Judge Mahon added that Mr Lawlor did not challenge Mr Seddon's statement regarding the authenticity of the document yesterday.
Mr Lawlor insisted the document "was a Seddon's document as far as I am concerned. I didn't produce it."
Today is Mr Lawlor's first day at the tribunal since Judge Mahon deferred a decision to send Mr Lawlor to the High Court for failing to comply with the tribunal's orders.
Mr Lawlor was adjudged to have failed to co-operate but was given a final chance and filed more than 11,000 documents relating to his financial affairs hours before a deadline imposed by Judge Mahon expired.
According to Mr O'Neill only 300 pages of the material submitted clearly relate to the matters under investigation.
Judge Mahon also said the three-member panel would be considering whether or not to contact the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to securing a prosecution over what he described as "contradictory" evidence given by the former Dublin West TD.
