Cosgrave criticised for retaining papers

FORMER Fine Gael TD Liam Cosgrave has been strongly criticised by the Flood Tribunal over his failure to disclose important papers to the planning inquiry about his dealings with Frank Dunlop.

However, the tribunal has also been forced to concede that it had not circulated documentation relevant to Mr Cosgrave’s defence of allegations of corruption against him by Mr Dunlop as early as it should have.

Yesterday’s hearing was dominated for a second day in a row by a protracted legal argument between the tribunal and lawyers for Mr Cosgrave.

Both sides accused each other of withholding important documentation about payments between the political lobbyist and Mr Cosgrave during the 1990s. The tribunal is investigating allegations by Mr Dunlop that Mr Cosgrave demanded over £7,000 in bribes for supporting controversial land rezonings at Carrickmines, Co Dublin.

The tribunal ruled yesterday that Mr Cosgrave’s legal team was wrong to produce a cheque without notice during the course of their cross-examination of Mr Dunlop earlier this week.

However, Mr Cosgrave’s barrister, Michael O’Higgins accused the tribunal of failing to address any of the criticisms which he had raised. He suggested the tribunal was acting like “people in glass houses” because it appeared that it also had the cheque and had concealed its existence.

Mr O’Higgins complained that the tribunal had treated his client unjustly by only circulating Mr Dunlop’s bank records earlier this week.

But in a strongly-worded ruling, tribunal chairman, Mr Justice Feargus Flood said the cheque had not been disclosed as obliged by Mr Cosgrave under discovery orders made by the tribunal.

He reminded the various legal teams that all relevant evidence must be furnished to the tribunal whether or not discovery orders had been issued to a party.

The chairman stressed that the tribunal was master of its own procedures and therefore entitled to assess, evaluate and decide when and what evidence should be circulated.

However, Mr Justice Flood said the tribunal was particularly concerned at Mr Cosgrave’s own failure to make full discovery. He said the tribunal now required the Fine Gael councillor to furnish another affidavit setting out the reasons for this failure. Mr Cosgrave was also instructed to explain when and how he became aware of the existence of the cheque.

In a separate ruling, the chairman acknowledged that certain bank records ought to have been circulated to Mr Cosgrave at an earlier stage by the tribunal. However, he did not believe the cross-examination of Mr Dunlop by Mr Cosgrave’s legal team had been prejudiced by this delay.