O'Callaghan denies asking Dunlop to alter his diaries

CORK DEVELOPER Owen O'Callaghan has denied asking lobbyist Frank Dunlop to alter entries in his diaries that connected Mr O'Callaghan with the late Liam Lawlor.

Mr O'Callaghan said he hadn't "a notion" why Mr Dunlop altered the entries.

The planning tribunal is currently questioning Mr O'Callaghan as part of the Quarryvale II module, an investigation into allegations of corruption surrounding the rezoning of land on which the Liffey Valley shopping centre is built.

The tribunal had heard that Mr O'Callaghan paid £30,000 to Mr Lawlor in 1993 for his help with the Quarryvale development.

Counsel for the tribunal Patricia Dillon SC highlighted an entry in Mr Dunlop's diary on November 10th, 1993.

It recorded a meeting with Mr O'Callaghan from 9.30am to 1pm and beside it was a phone number, letters "GH" and other words which were blacked out.

On forensic examination by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the phone number and letters had over-written "LL 1½", and the blacked-out words read "1 ready, ½ cheque".

Ms Dillon said Mr Dunlop had agreed he'd altered the words, but could not explain why and did not recall what they referred to.

She also said an entry in Mr Dunlop's diary in August 1993, which showed an appointment with Mr O'Callaghan and Mr Lawlor, had also been altered and Mr Lawlor's name had been obliterated.

Ms Dillon said Mr Dunlop had told the tribunal he made payments totalling £140,000 to Mr Lawlor when he handed over his diaries and so there was no reason for him to conceal his connection with Mr Lawlor.

"When Mr Dunlop made the alteration, it was deliberate . . . not for himself but for someone else that was going to read the diary . . . the tribunal," Ms Dillon said.

She asked Mr O'Callaghan if he discussed any financial arrangement with Mr Lawlor on November 10th.

He said he did not, and could not recall meeting him that day in Mr Dunlop's office.

"Is it possible that Mr Dunlop might have been anxious to protect you from the scrutiny of the tribunal?" Ms Dillon asked.

"He has no reason for that because there was no arrangement," Mr O'Callaghan said. He said he hadn't a notion about the obliterations.

Ms Dillon asked if he and Mr Dunlop ever discussed concealing Mr O'Callaghan's involvement with Mr Lawlor, or if he ever asked Mr Dunlop to make the alteration.

"Never, never," Mr O'Callaghan said.

"Therefore . . . this is something Mr Dunlop has done of his own volition?" Ms Dillon asked.

"Absolutely," Mr O'Callaghan said.

Also yesterday, Mr Dunlop reiterated that businessman John Butler was aware that councillors would have to be paid if he wanted land rezoned in north Dublin.

Mr Dunlop was being cross-examined as part of the Cloghran module, an investigation into allegations of corruption surrounding the rezoning of 18 acres near Dublin airport.

The land was bought in 1989 for £215,000, rezoned to industrial in 1993 and sold in 1996 for £1.6 million. Mr Dunlop had said he paid councillors £5,000 to secure the rezoning.

David Montgomery, solicitor for Mr Butler and his business partners Tom Williams and Niall Kenny, said Mr Dunlop was employed as a public relations person and had lobbied against Aer Rianta, and his clients knew nothing about payments to councillors. "I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept that I have been paid £24,175 over a period of six months for what in effect was giving a list of councillors and photographs to your clients and doing absolutely nothing else," Mr Dunlop said.