Redmond denies seeking payment

The former assistant Dublin city and county manager, Mr George Redmond, has denied that he asked the Murphy group of property developers for money in return for assistance with planning applications.

Mr Redmond told the Flood tribunal yesterday that as assistant manager he had no control over executive functions in the planning department. He rejected assertions by the tribunal's chief witness, Mr James Gogarty, that he had ever met Mr Joseph Murphy jnr, or that he had asked if the Murphy group would paint his house.

Mr Redmond sat in the public gallery shaking his head and occasionally turning his eyes upwards as Mr Gogarty alleged his involvement with the Murphy group, including an allegation that Mr Redmond was seeking consultancy work from the builders as he was planning early retirement.

Twice Mr Redmond, who was without his legal team yesterday, approached the lawyers' tables and asked to be heard by Mr Justice Flood.

Mr Gogarty said he had first met Mr Redmond with a former Murphy group chief executive, Mr Liam Conroy, at the Gaiety Theatre in 1984, when the theatre was being refurbished and sold by the Murphy group.

Mr Gogarty asserted that he also had a meeting with Mr Redmond in the former Dublin County Council offices in O'Connell Street in May 1988, in which Mr Redmond said he had been offered a consultancy agreement with the Murphy group by Mr Conroy.

According to Mr Gogarty, at this meeting Mr Redmond also asked if the Murphy group employed painters, as his house needed painting.

Mr Gogarty said that he had a further meeting with Mr Redmond in the presence of Mr Murphy jnr, in Mr Redmond's office, at which Mr Redmond gave advice on sending a letter to the council's planning department, and he asked for 10 per cent of all monies saved by the Murphy group as a result of his advice.

Counsel for the tribunal, Mr John Gallagher SC, put it to Mr Gogarty that Mr Redmond, in his statement which had been supplied to the tribunal earlier, said he had never heard of Mr Joe Murphy jnr "until recent events".

Reading from Mr Redmond's statement to the tribunal, Mr Gallagher said Mr Redmond maintained that he first met Mr Gogarty "some time in 1987", when Mr Gogarty and Mr Bat O'Shea, another Murphy group executive, came to his office.

"He says he did not know Joseph Murphy snr, had never met Joseph Murphy snr, had never spoken to him or corresponded with him, and the same applied to Mr Joseph Murphy jnr," said Mr Gallagher.

Mr Gallagher said it would be Mr Redmond's evidence that he met Mr Gogarty and Mr O'Shea because they wished to ascertain the status of services on Murphy group land.

Again reading from Mr Redmond's statement, he said: "Mr Gogarty thanked me for seeing him. He made me aware that the Murphys were the owners of several parcels of land at Finglas, Poppintree, Balgriffin and Portmarnock.

"His purpose in wishing to see me was to establish on behalf of his company the precise position in relation to drainage and water, services, roads etc, in so far as Dublin County Council was concerned."

Mr Gogarty replied: "I completely disagree with that."

Mr Gallagher said Mr Redmond's statement would also argue that he met Mr Conroy just once, when Mr Conroy was introduced by Mr Gogarty. Mr Gogarty rejected this also.

Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the Murphy group, objected to Mr Gallagher's handling of portions of Mr Redmond's statement. He said it was "cherry-picking" and was being presented to Mr Gogarty to give him an opportunity to discredit Mr Redmond.

While Mr Redmond's first request was to ask to be heard on a technical matter in relation to planning law, in his second intervention he said that it was crucial that his full statement, as supplied to the tribunal, be heard.

"I think it is particularly important that the entire of my statement should be read," he told Mr Justice Flood. "The first portion of my statement deals with my status at the time of the events. It is necessary for me to make that statement in view of the statement made by Mr Gogarty," he explained.

"Mr Gogarty described me as the county manager. By so doing he implied that there reserved in me at that stage all the executive functions of the county council. So it would seem from that statement that I had all the powers, that I had planning powers and related powers.

"I think in my statement I clarified my position, though it would appear to me that Mr Gallagher was not touching on that section. Mr Gogarty says I was the county manager with planning powers that's implied. But I say in my statement I was not that at that stage. I had limited powers and they did not include planning."

After Mr Redmond's oral submission Mr Gallagher continued to read from Mr Redmond's statement supplied to the tribunal in response to Mr Gogarty's allegations.

"I explained to him . . . the legal position (with regard to the lands) was absolutely clear. If the permission expired, then in order to carry out development a new permission would have to be obtained and this would involve an entirely new application.

"I stressed the fact that in the event of a new application there was absolutely no guarantee that a fresh permission would be granted."

In response Mr Gogarty said: "With all respects to everybody here that's all gobbledygook. Here is a situation where I was acting on the instructions of an employer under questionable circumstances. If I was a free agent, as an engineer representing a client, I would not go to the county manager or the assistant county manager.

"I would go to the planning department and to the sewage department and to the drainage department and I would get all that information. And if Mr Redmond was acting with instructions, he would tell me to go there and not be bothering him. That was a special case."

Mr Gogarty's evidence continues on Monday.