ANALYSIS:IT SEEMS a lifetime since George Redmond was in the public eye through his appearances at the planning tribunal and in the dock of the criminal courts, where he was tried on corruption charges and later had a conviction quashed.
Redmond, who retired as assistant Dublin county manager as far back as 1989, was present yesterday in court 16 to hear lawyers lock horns one more time with the tribunal on his behalf.
Now almost 88 years of age, he appeared as dapper and tanned as ever he did when giving evidence to the inquiry in Dublin Castle over a decade ago.
In the current proceedings, his lawyers are challenging the tribunal’s refusal of costs and their findings that he accepted corrupt payments.
So much water has passed under the bridge here that the first named defendant in Flood v Redmond, Mr Justice Feargus Flood, retired as chairman of the tribunal as far back as 2003. The current chair, Judge Alan Mahon, and two other members are also named as defendants, as is the State.
Publication of the long-awaited final report of the tribunal is imminent, although some observers say the judges are awaiting the outcome of this case and separate criminal proceedings involving businessman Jim Kennedy and former Dublin county councillors he is alleged to have bribed. That seems unlikely, but the wait for the report continues, more than three years since public hearings ended.
Redmond isn’t the first person to try to overturn the tribunal’s refusal of costs, and his case rests heavily on the successful action taken by businessman Joseph Murphy jnr. Like Redmond, Murphy was found by the tribunal to have been involved in corruption and to have hindered and obstructed its work.
However, last year, the Supreme Court upheld Murphy’s appeal against the inquiry’s refusal to grant his costs. The judges found that the tribunal erred by basing its decision on matters that should have been left to the criminal courts.
The decision to refuse costs to Redmond was not based on the same grounds, tribunal lawyers argued yesterday.
Redmond has explained the delay in bringing his case on a number of factors: the fact that he was in jail for almost a year, a change in solicitors, his lack of money and the fact he was awaiting the outcome of the Murphy judgment. The tribunal says the delay is inordinate.