An order compelling Fianna Fail TD Mr Liam Lawlor to appear before lawyers for the Flood Tribunal and answer questions gave those lawyers more powers than "not just gardai, but gardai dealing with subversives", the High Court was told yesterday.
Mr Lawlor would be in a worse position than a person arrested under the Offences Against the State Act if he appeared before tribunal lawyers in circumstances where "no law and no rules" apply, Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for the Dublin West TD, said.
It was proposed that Mr Lawlor appear before tribunal lawyers in private and in the absence of the tribunal chairman, Mr Justice Flood, Mr Hardiman said. The TD would be questioned about allegations regarding which he had no detailed information, and his answers would be recorded. These answers could later be used as evidence in public sessions.
This was not just an administrative hearing as suggested by the tribunal, he said. It was a matter of substance. While tribunals could not legally determine matters, they could have a destructive effect on a person's good name as in the case of the former Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, following the McCracken tribunal.
There was no good reason for the tribunal to refuse to give Mr Lawlor the details he was seeking about the allegations made against him, Mr Hardiman said. From media reports, Mr Lawlor understood the tribunal had affidavits from three executives of Arlington Securities plc, at least two affidavits from developer Mr Tom Gilmartin, and statements from other persons.
Yesterday was the third day of the challenge by Mr Lawlor to a number of orders made by the tribunal.
Mr Lawlor, of Somerton, Lucan, Co Dublin, also wants a declaration that he is entitled to be given details of allegations or of statements adverse to him.
The tribunal pleads that Mr Lawlor is sufficiently aware of the substance of the allegations against him to enable him to respond to these. It claims he is not entitled to detailed information obtained on a confidential basis or to the names of informants. It also argues that the proposed questioning of Mr Lawlor will be in private and is merely part of the information-gathering aspect of its work.
Mr Patrick Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, said he would be contending that the questioning procedure proposed could be done under Section 4 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1979.
The hearing, before Mr Justice Kearns, continues today.
