O’Callaghan bailed out councillor, tribunal hears
Lobbyist Frank Dunlop recalled how Mr McGrath phoned his office on May 21, 1992, saying he was being sued for more than £10,000, didn’t have the money to pay, and faced court judgment that day.
In 1992, said tribunal lawyer Patricia Dillon SC, £10,000 was “an awful lot of money” and, in today’s terms, would be equal to about €40,000.
When he got the call, Mr Dunlop was meeting with the Cork-based businessman and architect Ambrose Kelly. The three men discussed the situation and it was agreed Mr Dunlop would send a bank draft for £10,700 by courier to the plaintiff’s solicitors.
Mr O’Callaghan has confirmed to the tribunal he asked the lobbyist to pay the money to Mr McGrath on his behalf and that he would reimburse Mr Dunlop.
Mr Dunlop said Mr O’Callaghan asked him to send him an invoice for this purpose and six months later Mr O’Callaghan reimbursed Mr Dunlop.
The tribunal heard how the McGrath payment was described in Mr Dunlop’s accounts as “legal fees”.
Mr O’Callaghan wrote to Mr Dunlop between July and October 2000 looking for details as to how Mr Dunlop recorded the payment, saying he had no account of it but it was on his mind.
Quizzed why it was decided to give the money to Mr McGrath, Mr Dunlop said he was aware Oireachtas members declared bankrupt could forfeit their Dáil seat, but he was not sure about the position for local representatives in such situations.
Mr Dunlop said Mr McGrath was a very significant supporter of Quarryvale and it would “not look well” for the project if he had a debt he could not discharge.
In fact, said Ms Dillon, Mr McGrath had signed the original Quarryvale zoning motion and was a co-signatory of an amended motion before Dublin Co Council.
Mr Dunlop agreed with Ms Dillon he never told Mr O’Callaghan he had bribed politicians. After he (Mr Dunlop) had “crossed the Rubicon” — his decision to become whistleblower and reveal his role in paying councillors — Mr Dunlop said Mr O’Callaghan had expressed to him his shock and astonishment.
Chairman Judge Alan Mahon asked Mr Dunlop how they interpreted Mr McGrath’s request — was the money to be paid for political purposes, or for past or future support for Quarryvale? Mr Dunlop said he understood the call emanated from a previous relationship Mr McGrath had with Mr O’Callaghan in relation to Quarryvale.
He said Mr McGrath was very confident making the call either to Mr Dunlop or Mr O’Callaghan and that his problem could be resolved by either of them.



