Mr James Gogarty said yesterday he was not making any implications when he wrote in a 1996 letter to the Labour TD, Mr Tommy Broughan, that it appeared the then minister for justice, Mrs Nora Owen, was deliberately evading Dail questions. Under cross-examination Mr Gogarty said the minister might not have had the full facts.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the Murphy group, referred to the letter of December 29th, 1996, that Mr Gogarty had written to Mr Broughan in connection with the alleged threatening phone calls to Mr Gogarty from Mr Joseph Murphy jnr and the Garda's decision not to charge Mr Murphy.
Counsel said it was a five-page letter which stated that, despite Mr Broughan's efforts, it appeared the minister and the powers-thatbe were "deliberately evading" action on their complaint.
Mr Cooney said Mr Gogarty had caused Mr Broughan to put Dail questions to the Minister. The letter went on to say: "It has now reached the stage we are not satisfied that the minister's evasion is not part of some cover-up of the scandals of fraud, bribery and corruption which we discussed in detail with you some eight months ago." Counsel said it appeared Mr Gogarty first consulted Mr Broughan in May 1995 but the early part of the association referred only to the lack of Garda action on the alleged incident involving Mr Murphy jnr.
Then in May 1996, matters of bribery and corruption were referred to and Mr Gogarty gave Mr Broughan a file.
Mr Cooney asked if the documents in the file dealt with Mr Gogarty's employment with the Murphys, and allegations of bribery and corruption of leading politicians. Was it a large file? Mr Gogarty said he would say it was a fairly substantial file. Mr Cooney asked Mr Gogarty if he had been led to the conclusion that Mr Broughan had furnished documents to the minister. "It would appear from that, yes," Mr Gogarty said.
Mr Cooney said he thought Mr Broughan had asked a number of questions of the minister, but Mr Gogarty was not satisfied with the answers. "Correct", said Mr Gogarty. Mr Cooney said Mr Gogarty in his evidence had accused the minister of kicking the matter to touch.
"That would be a fair comment," Mr Gogarty said. Mr Cooney asked if he was suggesting that the minister was deliberately evading Mr Broughan's questions.
"I felt she mightn't have the full facts," Mr Gogarty said. "I wasn't making any implications, I was saying I wasn't satisfied that the matter was being checked out." Mr Cooney said he thought Mr Gogarty had said there was deliberate evasion.
"Evasion could be witting or unwitting, the fact that she hadn't information. To me it appears there was evasion," the witness said. "Can I ask you what evidence did you have at that time to support this very serious charge against the minister for justice?" Mr Gogarty replied: "It was lack of evidence, that I was left in the lurch. That I wasn't getting a satisfactory answer."
Mr Cooney asked if he was saying that he was frustrated at the minister's lack of response. "Very much so," the witness said. Mr Cooney put it to Mr Gogarty that the letter was a prime example of his obsession with his grievances and if he failed to get his way or someone did not respond, he made outrageous allegations and accusations against them.
Mr Gogarty said: "I'm putting it to you, it comes back to your client that he's the cause of my frustration . . . I could go to my grave and carry it in my grave, the Burke affairs and the Redmond affairs and the Bailey affairs. I wouldn't be very proud of it. But I wouldn't let him put me in my grave by his vicious conduct to break every bone in my body."