The High Court will rule on Monday whether Dublin West TD Mr Liam Lawlor is in contempt of court orders. This would be because of his failure to provide the Flood tribunal with full discovery of documents and financial records and failing to answer its questions on his financial affairs.
A finding that he is in contempt could lead to him being fined and/or imprisoned.
Tribunal counsel said yesterday it was not credible for Mr Lawlor to assert he had no recollection about where £2.5 million had come from and urged that he be found in contempt.
The tribunal also claimed that many of the documents given by Mr Lawlor to it related to matters which it was already aware of. Mr Lawlor knew this.
At the end of the four-day hearing yesterday, Mr Justice Smyth said the matters were of "some considerable gravity". He would reserve his decision until Monday.
Mr Lawlor appeared before the tribunal for four days in December but was stood down as a witness by Mr Justice Flood after clashing with tribunal counsel over issues relating to discovery of documents and his use of credit cards.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the tribunal, said in closing submissions yesterday it was not credible that Mr Lawlor did not, as he had alleged to the tribunal, have a recollection where £2.5 million had come from.
He said Mr Lawlor had been asked to give his recollection as to where the money had come from, not to give "an accountant's reconciliation".
He said Mr Lawlor had refused at the tribunal to give his recollection and had wanted to go away and reconcile his situation. He must have known about receiving £2.5 million "in one go". He was not a person in poverty and was reasonably wealthy. He was not a person for whom £2.5 million might seem like "a mere trifle".
If a person had received £2.5 million he must have a reasonably good idea where it came from and it was not credible he had no recollection.
Mr Clarke said he had to show Mr Lawlor's conduct in failing to include the relevant documentation was intentional. He did not have to establish the TD intended to commit contempt. One did not have to show Mr Lawlor knew he was committing contempt but rather show that what he did was done deliberately. This was clear beyond any doubt.
Mr Lawlor had accepted there was a large amount of additional information which he had not included in the material he had given to the tribunal and had now sought to put that right.
Once Mr Lawlor had been found, as he should be, to be in contempt, it was for him to show that there were extenuating circumstances. His motives, reasons and excuses were matters relevant only in mitigation and not as to whether he was in contempt. Mr Lawlor had to show the court that what he did was not deliberate.
In the early stages of the proceedings, Mr Clarke said, it was clear that Mr Lawlor's side was admitting there was contempt and was apologising. He was surprised that the court was now being urged to decide there was no contempt.
When a tribunal was inquiring into matters of possible corruption, there were unlikely to be any witnesses flocking to give evidence. The people involved would not be particularly willing witnesses. A tribunal had to test whether there was corruption and establish whether what it was being told was the complete picture.
Mr Justice Smyth remarked it had been stated in a previous judgment that it could be safely assumed nobody ever told the truth about fornication or cash.
Mr Clarke said lawyers for Mr Lawlor had said the tribunal only knew about a sum of £4.5 million from documents made available by Mr Lawlor. However, Mr Lawlor had known before making those documents available that the tribunal had been to every financial institution in the country. He then went to the banks and asked them what they had given the tribunal. He had given to the tribunal what it knew already.
He said Mr Lawlor argued he did not have time to produce all that was required and did not understand the court order. Mr Lawlor could not rely on both of those reasons.
It was alleged on Mr Lawlor's behalf that he had been very cooperative with the tribunal. However, of the 2,120 documents in the possession of the tribunal, Mr Lawlor had subsequently furnished 2,000 of these which were banking documents.
Mr Lawlor was, in effect, reproducing for the tribunal that which, he knew, it already knew.
The court should conclude Mr Lawlor had failed to answer questions and produce the information required of him to the tribunal. It was a matter for the discretion of the court to decide what should be done about this.