Tribunal without Gogarty becomes a far duller place

There are good days and bad days at the Flood tribunal. Yesterday was a bad day. By noon the large hall which once rebounded with laughter at the taunting comments of Jim Gogarty had just 12 people in the public gallery. One of them had his eyes closed as his chest rose and fell evenly.

There were 13 lawyers/tribunal staff, including the judge, in a space which can seat 50, and the same number of journalists watching the proceedings. The journalists sat up as a crucial assertion was read out: that Mr Gogarty waived his rights to a commission on monies recouped from the ESB. Before Mr Justice Flood could get to the bottom of this, Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the Murphy group, said if any correspondence between the former JMSE group financial controller, Mr Roger Copsey, and the Revenue was to be read out, then all correspondence would be read out.

It was not for him to tell the counsel for the tribunal, Mr Pat Hanratty SC, where that correspondence was. It was a matter for the tribunal to identify and then read into the record, he claimed.

After a short break to identify the correspondence, Mr Hanratty began to read into the record Mr Copsey's contacts with the Revenue Commissioners. Mr Cooney was on his feet again almost immediately: the manner of the reading was not chronological, he complained. He was overruled. The tribunal adjourned for lunch.

In the afternoon the numbers in the public gallery had fallen to nine. There were 15 lawyers/tribunal staff but just eight journalists. Mr Gerard Sheedy, solicitor for Mr Gogarty, was in the witness box. Mr Hanratty announced he was reading document 1140. Mr Sheedy did not have that document.

Documents were produced and read out as the afternoon wore on. Occasionally, Mr Sheedy was asked to comment on a particular aspect. Was it true, as Mr Copsey appeared to assert to the Revenue Commissioners, that Mr Gogarty had waived his right to commission on the ESB money?

"No," said Mr Sheedy. Mr Coo ney objected; it was manifestly unjust to his client to read out passages selectively. If there was to be anything read out it should all be read out. Mr Justice Flood, however, was keeping his eye on the ball. Was it true that Mr Gogarty had waived his right to a commission on the ESB money? "I want an answer. Was that statement accurate?" he asked Mr Cooney. Mr Cooney said there was a second letter. All correspondence had to be read. Journalist Frank Connolly, whose revelations led to the resignation of Mr Ray Burke, shifted in his seat. "No it does not," Mr Justice Flood said. "To single out a piece is not fair," Mr Cooney replied.

"Did Mr Gogarty ever waive his right to the commission on the ESB monies?" Mr Hanratty asked Mr Sheedy. "No he did not," he replied.

Eventually all the relevant correspondence was read out and Mr Cooney began cross-examination of Mr Sheedy. The journalists sat up expectantly. Here at last was a likely line or two of copy.

They were to be dismayed again. Almost as soon as the cross-examination began, Mr Justice Flood wondered if the questions were bordering on client confidentiality. It was an issue he could think about. The tribunal adjourned until 10.30 a.m. today.

"We'll never get to hear Ray Burke before the Dail rises for the summer at this rate," the journalists muttered despondently.