Tribunal lawyer says Murphy counsel may be impugning it

There were sharp exchanges between counsel for the tribunal and for the Murphy group over the alleged "cherry-picking" of evidence.

Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the Murphy group, claimed tribunal counsel was about to pre-empt the cross-examination of witnesses by putting the contradictions between Mr James Gogarty's sworn evidence and the statements of other witnesses.

He accused Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, of "cherry-picking" among contradictions. It could only be to allow Mr Gogarty to "deny these matters or to explain away the inconsistencies".

But Mr Gallagher rejected the claims and said Mr Cooney appeared to be impugning the tribunal. Mr Gallagher said he was seeking to establish the truth.

Mr Cooney also challenged the use of part of a statement by journalist Frank Connolly of the Sun- day Business Post before cross-examination by the Murphy group's legal team. He alleged Mr Connolly's credibility was an issue and claimed he had a "vested interest" in the outcome of the proceedings.

But the chairman, Mr Justice Flood, intervened and said he had not made his mind up one way or the other about Mr Gogarty. He also said that "what Mr . . . what's his name, the correspondent, Mr Frank Connolly, has said", was not something he would have "written in stone" by the end of the week.

Mr Gallagher said that in other circumstances the claim Mr Connolly had a vested interest was "outrageous and perhaps slanderous". The chairman said the fact the comment was made did not give rise to a debate in the forum. "I will hear Mr Connolly's evidence. I will hear everybody's evidence. I will make my own mind up about it and I will come to a firm decision, I hope a fair decision."