Cosgrave lawyers’ anger at being sent on ‘bum steer’
Cross-examination of Frank Dunlop was halted yesterday by a lengthy legal wrangle over claims by Mr Cosgrave's legal team that the tribunal was not disclosing details of payments between their client and the political lobbyist.
However, Mr Cosgrave was criticised in turn by the tribunal over his own failure to bring an important cheque from Mr Dunlop to the attention of the inquiry earlier this week.
Mr Cosgrave's barrister, Michael O'Higgins SC laid the blame for the damage caused by his inability to properly cross-examine Mr Dunlop "firmly at the door of the tribunal."
"Information we sought which was clearly relevant was not disclosed to us. It sent us off on a bum steer," Mr O'Higgins said.
He noted with regret it wasn't the first time he had to complain about the conduct and fairness of the tribunal's treatment of his client," he said.
The barrister said he was taken aback by the fashion in which relevant documentation had belatedly been given to his team by the tribunal yesterday.
He said Mr Cosgrave had sought access to such papers at the beginning of the tribunal's current module which is examining claims that Mr Dunlop bribed councillors for support on behalf of two offshore companies Paisley Park and Jackson Way Properties.
Mr Dunlop has alleged he paid around £15,000 in bribes to Mr Cosgrave for signing motions to rezone lands at Carrickmines in south Dublin.
Mr O'Higgins claimed it was a basic principle of fairness that anybody accused of serious conduct like Mr Cosgrave should be entitled to see all relevant documentation in the tribunal's possession.
The barrister said his ability to cross-examine Mr Dunlop was reduced to zero and unfairly compromised because of the withholding of certain papers, including Mr Dunlop's bank records.
However, tribunal counsel, John Gallagher SC said Mr Cosgrave's lawyers also introduced a cheque during Tuesday's hearing which had not been discovered to the inquiry's legal team.
Mr Gallagher said there was no reference to the cheque contained in two affidavits which Mr Cosgrave had sworn. He described Mr Cosgrave's discovery to date as clearly inadequate.
He also emphasised the inquiry was "master of its own procedures" and would decide when was the appropriate time to discover documentation to relevant parties. He explained such a course was necessary in order to conduct the public hearing in an orderly way.
Mr O'Higgins told the tribunal Mr Cosgrave was not in possession of the cheque from Mr Dunlop at the time he had prepared his sworn statements.
