The incarceration of Mr Liam Lawlor in Mountjoy Jail yesterday shows that the Flood tribunal is now armed with powerful persuasive tools. Some of them remain unused.
Eleven weeks of Mr Lawlor's three-month sentence remain to be served if the tribunal considers he is not co-operating. Its legal team can go back at any time to Mr Justice Smyth and ask that he serve the remainder of the sentence, or as much of it as is necessary to persuade him to co-operate.
It need not end there.
The court action last week related to a specific order. If further questions come up which Mr Lawlor would prefer not to answer, the tribunal may seek further orders and, if he again fails to comply, ask the court to jail him for contempt. As a previous offender in this regard, he would be unlikely to be treated sympathetically by the court.
All of this may obscure the fact that the tribunal is not a court of law, that neither Mr Lawlor nor anyone else appearing before it is being accused of any wrongdoing, and that nothing they say at the tribunal can be used against them in any later criminal proceedings that might arise.
Not that, at the moment, it looks very likely that any criminal proceedings will arise directly from the Flood tribunal.
Two issues might give rise to legal proceedings. One is the offence of obstructing the work of a tribunal, with which Mr Charles Haughey was charged following the McCracken tribunal.
However, that prosecution ran into a brick wall when his counsel argued that, given the blanket coverage by the media, he would find it impossible to get a fair trial.
It has been suggested the DPP could consider prosecuting Mr Lawlor for the same offence in relation to the Flood tribunal. But, given that he has already been sentenced to three months in prison for contempt arising out of essentially the same set of facts, the DPP may take the view that he has already been punished.
There is an offence of corruption of public officials on the statute books. However, there have been no prosecutions for this for about 50 years, and it would be very difficult to prove. Not only would it be necessary to show that money had changed hands and that a specific action was taken benefiting the donor, but it would also be necessary to show that the donor sought the action.
If such evidence emerged during the tribunal, it would have to be investigated independently by the Garda as a basis for a prosecution. There seems to be little immediate prospect of any of those appearing before the Flood tribunal, or any other tribunal, going to jail because of anything that emerges there.
So why have some people been less than enthusiastic about appearing before the tribunals and giving full evidence?
The tribunals are merely tools of the Oireachtas, set up to inquire into matters that the Oireachtas considers to be of public importance. They are investigative, not accusatory, they will not make a judgment of guilt or innocence, and their findings will not lead to any sanctions.
None the less, their proceedings are held in public and those who appear before them have their financial affairs opened to public scrutiny. Their right to privacy has been found by the Oireachtas to weigh less than the public interest. Not surprisingly, few people called before them welcome this.
But this may be of more than theoretical importance to some witnesses. Among those who sit in on hearings are representatives of the Revenue Commissioners, no doubt taking copious notes of the financial information revealed during the proceedings.
This may be of particular concern to those who availed of the tax amnesty. Under this amnesty individuals could make a declaration to the Revenue Commissioners of their undeclared income, and pay 10 per cent in settlement of their tax liability. There was no need to specify the source of the undeclared income.
However, this was on the basis that the declaration was full and frank. If, for example, an individual with an undeclared income of £1 million over a period said he had had undeclared income of £200,000, and paid the required £20,000, he would be liable to considerable penalties if this was discovered.
These would include tax liability for the full amount, including VAT, company tax, personal tax, plus penalties and interest, which could easily amount to more than the total amount of undeclared income. On top of this there is a mandatory prison sentence for a false declaration under the tax amnesty.
There is no evidence that Mr Lawlor, or any other witness to the Flood tribunal, made false declarations under the tax amnesty. But if any of them did, it may be the Revenue Commissioners, and not the criminal justice system, that they will face in the final reckoning.