Tribunal gets an opportunity to show its anger at assets bureau

When the head of the State's cutting-edge crime-fighting unit is spending all his time preparing legal proceedings against another…

When the head of the State's cutting-edge crime-fighting unit is spending all his time preparing legal proceedings against another State body, something must be amiss.

Det Chief Supt Fachtna Murphy of the Criminal Assets Bureau spent all last week in legal consultation with his lawyers, at a time when he should have been dealing with many other cases involving organised crime, he told the planning tribunal yesterday.

However, instead of resolving a dispute which he variously described as inappropriate and highly undesirable, by the end of the morning Supt Murphy found himself in even greater conflict with the tribunal. Ultimately, the matter has ended up in the High Court, where the judges will have to pronounce delicately on an unprecedented "turf war" between two State agencies.

First though, the tribunal got a chance to show its anger at the stance adopted by the Criminal Assets Bureau. Playing on home ground in Dublin Castle, tribunal lawyers read out a series of correspondence between the bureau and the tribunal, only minutes before the matter would become subjudice as a result of the judicial review the bureau was seeking across the river in the Four Courts.

READ MORE

The dispute goes back to each body's separate investigation into the former assistant Dublin city and county manager, Mr George Redmond. After months under investigation, Mr Redmond had amassed a pile of documentation at his home, which he proposed to pass on to the tribunal.

However, he was arrested by bureau officers in sensational circumstances on February 19th, as he was returning from the Isle of Man. Mr Redmond was found to be carrying £300,000 in cash and cheques. Bureau detectives searched his home the same night and took away the documentation. They have subsequently refused all requests from the tribunal to provide copies of this material.

The tribunal ordered Supt Murphy to produce the material, but at a sitting last month he refused, saying it might prejudice investigations by the Criminal Assets Bureau and any future trial. In a ruling, Mr Justice Flood stood by his order and said he would be sending an interim report on the matter to the Oireachtas.

Yesterday, we learned that in subsequent correspondence, Supt Murphy tried to clear up some "misunderstandings" which had arisen from his first evidence.

The tribunal, having had prize evidence whipped away from under its nose, felt this was poor recompense for months of work - as the chairman said to Supt Murphy on a previous occasion, "you saw the red apple, and you took it away". It also objected that Supt Murphy was dealing in private correspondence with a matter which had been considered and decided upon in public.

So for a second time, Supt Murphy returned to the witness-box for "robbing" the tribunal's apples but, once again, he revealed little, preferring to hold his fire until the High Court grapples with the is sue. Mr Justice Flood asked him about recent media reports that Mr Redmond was to face a tax bill of up to £2 million on foot of the bureau's investigation.

The reports quoted a tribunal letter which had been seen only by the tribunal and the bur eau. However, Mr Felix McEnroy SC, for the tribunal, said Supt Murphy had already indicated he was unable to help on this matter.

With Mr James Gogarty all but gone from Dublin Castle, the public gallery was emptier than it has been for some months. However, the rows of desks in the middle of the hall had filled up with black-suited lawyers representing clients who are about to be called as witnesses.

The first to be called yesterday included two journalists and a retired bank manager. Mr William Brangan, formerly manager of AIB in Talbot Street, was asked about two withdrawals, for £10,000 and £20,000, from the JMSE account in June 1989, about the time the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Ray Burke, was paid this sum.

Apart from confirming the details on the bank statements - proudly displayed for the first time on a giant projection screen at the top of the hall - Mr Brangan's recollection was sketchy. This wasn't surprising, since he has been retired for nine years and was told that he would be called to give evidence only a week ago.

Mr Matt Cooper, editor of the Sunday Tribune, was asked about an article which appeared in the paper in July 1997. This was the first time Mr Burke was named as the recipient of a payment from a property company, but more significantly today, it also identified Bovale Developments, owned by the Bailey brothers, as the company which paid over the money.

Mr Cooper said his information came from a reliable source whom he did not wish to identify, and had been confirmed by the Government press secretary, Mr Joe Lennon.

According to Mr Cooper, Mr Lennon was surprised to be told Bovale was involved in the matter, but later confirmed this. Mr Lennon declined to confirm or deny, however, that Bovale had been the source of the payment.

Mr John Ryan, managing editor of Magill in October 1997 when it published details of the famous letter to JMSE in which Mr Michael Bailey promised to "procure" planning permission for the Murphy lands in north Co Dublin, revealed how he obtained his information at a wedding.

Mr Ryan recalled that he was given information about the letter and allowed to see it in the church before the bride arrived. He went down the back and jotted a few notes "on a Mass card". A day or two later, he met the source again and was shown the letter for about 45 seconds. He had not heard the word "procure" used outside the "the oldest profession".