IT IS NOW uncertain how the Dunnes payments tribunal will proceed following the dramatic emergence of new evidence which was being studied yesterday by Mr Charles Haughey and his legal team.
The tribunal sat for 2 1/2 minutes yesterday morning, during which time the chairman, Mr Justice McCracken, granted a request by Mr Haughey's counsel, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for an adjournment until this morning. The adjournment was to allow Mr McGonigal discuss new evidence given to the tribunal and to him yesterday - with his client, Mr Haughey.
The tribunal opened 75 minutes late yesterday morning, without explanation, amid speculation that the new information unearthed by the tribunal team was highly significant. There was also speculation that one of the parties represented at the tribunal was to make a dramatic application to the judge, but no confirmation or details of this were available last night.
The adjournment was granted just before Mr Ben Dunne's solicitor, Mr Noel Smyth, was due to give evidence of five conversations he had with Mr Haughey concerning the probable payment of more than Pounds 1 million by Mr Dunne to Mr Haughey.
Mr Smyth may now give his evidence this morning, but it could not be ascertained last night how significant the new evidence is, and whether it will change the course of the tribunal.
The new evidence, according to Mr Justice McCracken, has arisen out of inquiries made by the tribunal team following its receipt of a statement by Mr Haughey on Monday morning. Mr Haughey's statement concerns the probable receipt by him of over Pounds 1 million from Mr Ben Dunne.
Having received Mr Haughey's statement on Monday morning, the tribunal adjourned for 24 hours to allow its legal team to consider what Mr Haughey said and to make supplementary inquiries. The resultant new evidence provided to the tribunal yesterday morning is in the form of a document, but it could not be ascertained last night who had provided this new document.
Mr Haughey's statement was due to be given to the tribunal by last Friday evening, but was only handed over on Monday morning. When Mr McGonigal applied for an adjournment yesterday, the chairman told him: "If your statement had been furnished on Friday, this would all have been dealt with before now."
He said, however, that in fairness to Mr Haughey he could do nothing but accede to Mr McGonigal's request and to allow him take instructions from his client. He indicated that he would not entertain a further adjournment application today.
Mr McGonigal said he was not making his application lightly. "I have considered the position and I feel that if I am to properly represent my client at this tribunal I require that adjournment for a short time to consider all aspects arising from the new material which has been furnished to me and to consider what would be the proper approach to take."