CONTINUING the third day of cross examination yesterday afternoon, Mr James Price QC, counsel for the Sunday Times, asked the former Taoiseach, Mr Albert Reynolds, if he had ever faced allegations of sleaze during his government.
After suggesting that the "picture the jury may have obtained of your premiership was untroubled until the publication of the Sunday Times' article", Mr Price said: "It is true to state that a tribunal was sitting at Dublin Castle investigating sleaze allegations against Mr Haughey, you and the Fianna Fail party."
Mr Justice French intervened and ruled that the question was inadmissible because it was comment.
After apologising to the judge, Mr Price said: "I'll put it another way. Is it true that there was a tribunal sitting at Dublin Castle until July, 1994?"
In his reply, Mr Reynolds said that the tribunal actually sat until July, 1993, and published its report in July, 1994. After establishing that the tribunal was investigating allegations relating to a period when Mr Reynolds was the Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1987, Mr Price began to ask about his predecessor, Mr Noonan, when he was interrupted by the former Taoiseach's barrister.
Lord Gareth Williams QC requested an adjournment to discuss the legal issues over these sleaze allegations. It was granted and the jury retired until today.
Earlier yesterday afternoon, Mr Price repeatedly suggested the Sunday Times' article had correctly stated that Mr Dick Spring and the Labour Party resigned from the government because he believed Mr Reynolds had misled the Dail.
Mr Reynolds rejected this contention by referring to Mr Spring's speech to the Dail on Wednesday November 16th, 1994, comparing his stance and the Sunday Times article. "The only reason why we are here is that the Sunday Times called me a liar. At a quick glance of Mr Spring's speech in the Dail, you won't find these words used against me," he said.
Mr Price then asked whether Mr Reynolds was saying that the Tanaiste lied to the Dail over the reasons for his party's resignation from the government.
"What I can't understand is why nobody bothered to find out the true facts. Mr Spring did not have the true facts and nobody (from the Sunday Times) bothered to ring me about it," replied Mr Reynolds.
Turning to Mr Reynolds's resignation as Taoiseach and the collapse of his government, Mr Price asked him whether he knew why negotiations for a coalition between Mr Spring and Mr Bertie Ahern, the new Fianna Fail leader, broke down.
Mr Reynolds said that he was not a party to the negotiations and could only base his answer on Mr Spring's subsequent statement to the media.
"It said they carried on the negotiations until some newspaper article in The Irish Times, written by Geraldine Kennedy, saying that Mr Whelehan was asked to resign on the Monday night. Mr Spring immediately said he had been misled in the negotiations and so I am calling them off," he said.
Asked twice by Mr Price if he thought Mr Spring was an "honourable man", Mr Reynolds told the jury that the Tanaiste had made several statements with which he disagreed, because he "was speaking in a vacuum, without the facts" but that he "did the best for his party".
Mr Reynolds repeatedly stated he still did not know the "true reason" for Mr Spring's objection to the appointment of the then Attorney General, Mr Harry
Whelehan, to President of the High Court.
"I've always believed there was more to it than just being conservative. I've always believed that I wasn't getting the full story ... the subsequent appointment is one of the most conservative of High Court judges," he said.
Turning to the Sunday Times' article, Mr Price asked whether Mr Reynolds was aware that his party's PR machine was working "actively" during the week of his downfall to portray the "best spin"?
Shaking his head, Mr Reynolds told the jury that he "did not have the stomach" to read newspapers. He denied that he was forced to resign as leader of Fianna Fail or face the threat of being "pushed" by his own backbenchers.
"I doubt that very, very much and I don't think you or anyone else is in a position to say it. The strength of my party, since it was formed in 1926, is loyalty to the leadership. There has never been a case where the leader was pushed. The leader always decides when he is going to go. We haven't had a she yet.
"That is the reality. Nobody, but nobody, came to me and asked me to resign," he said.
Mr Reynolds also rejected defence suggestions that the Sunday Times' article, in the Irish editions, written by Vincent Browne and John Burns, and with which he "has no quarrel" was based upon "Fianna Fail's spin" of events.
After describing Mr Browne as "an excellent journalist", Mr Reynolds pointed out, to laughter, that he could not be described as a Fianna Fail journalist because he was planning to stand as a Fine Gael candidate in the elections.
Mr Price repeatedly asked Mr Reynolds whether he considered Mr Alan Ruddock, the then Irish editor of the Sunday Times who wrote the alleged libellous article, to be a "dishonest journalist".
In reply, Mr Reynolds began to list the mistakes in the article.
To which, Mr Price said: "Mr Reynolds, you are an intelligent man, please answer the question."
"The Sunday Times did not print that. A gombeen man is not a definition of an intelligent man," retorted Mr Reynolds, amid more laughter.
Mr Reynolds rejected the defence suggestion that the Sunday Times had not contacted him directly to comment on the story out of "common courtesy" but had instead gone through his party and government press offices.
"That weekend you were the most interesting person in Ireland, more than any other creature," suggested Mr Price.
To which, Mr Reynolds replied; "I never knew I was that popular." As Mr Price then stated that he should know exactly how the media operated because he was not only a politician but "owner of an enormously successful pet food company", Mr Reynolds interrupted; "That's not what your article said. It said it was only modestly successful."
Mr Reynolds dismissed defence claims that the newspaper had spoken to his press officers, stating that they had no recollection of it, before telling the jury that several journalists on the Sunday Times had his home number and knew where he lived.
"I believe I could have been got and should have been got. If I'd been contacted, I don't think we would be assembled in this room. I still don't understand the reasons for that vicious article," he said.