Planning Tribunal - A harsh dose of reality for Liam Lawlor

BY REFERRING the file on former Fianna Fáil TD Liam Lawlor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Judge Alan Mahon has finally dealt the disgraced politician a harsh dose of reality he obviously needs.

Widely perceived as giving the two fingers to the tribunal probing bribery and corruption allegations involving developers and politicians in Co Dublin, Mr Lawlor now faces the prospect of criminal prosecution.

Not only has he destroyed himself in the public mind, but his feckless attitude towards the tribunal has intensified the growing cynicism towards politicians in general. Like it or not, they have all been smeared by the unacceptable activities of those who betrayed the trust placed in them by voters.

To date, the former deputy has been sent to Mountjoy Jail by the High Court on three occasions. But, until now, it is moot whether the gravity of his situation has borne in upon him.

If, however, Mr Lawlor expected Judge Mahon to bring him once more before the High Court, he has received a major and an entirely appropriate shock.

Mr Lawlor’s problems are utterly of his own making. Whatever happens now, he has brought it upon himself.

By any standard, the broadside fired by Judge Mahon yesterday could hardly be more devastating. On one hand, the three-judge panel was satisfied Mr Lawlor had finally complied “to the best of his ability” with an order of discovery for documentation relating to the sale of one acre of land beside his home in Lucan, Co Dublin, in November 2001.

But, in the no-nonsense words of tribunal chairman Judge Mahon, Mr Lawlor had given evidence that he knew was false.

Without pulling any punches, he accused him of being “evasive, dismissive, uncooperative, obstructive and lacking in co-operation to a degree which can only amount to a very serious attempt to knowingly mislead, obstruct and hinder the tribunal in its work”.

The latest twist in this long-running legal saga highlights the urgent need to give tribunals of investigation greater powers, including the remit to take punitive action against those who blatantly play ducks and drakes with the process.

Judging by the Lawlor experience, the requirement to refer matters to the High Court represents an inherent weakness in the tribunal procedure that should now be addressed by the Government. Such tribunals must be given real teeth and empowered to take more effective action on the spot.

The possibility of this happening depends on whether this law-and-order Coalition has the guts to adopt a more honest approach to rogue politicians who feel they can thumb their noses at the system and get away with it.

In addition to the possibility of facing a jail sentence, Mr Lawlor now faces the prospect of having to meet the total costs of the tribunal investigation over the past month.

And he should not be surprised if the Revenue Commissioners also take an interest in how profits from his land deals were often described as loan agreements.

Without pre-empting the DPP’s role, it is clear that the sternest action is warranted against a politician who has shown utter disregard, contempt and arrogance towards a tribunal established by the Oireachtas.

With his reputation, his political career and whatever role he may have hoped to play in Irish life now in tatters, no tears will be shed by the public if Mr Lawlor finally gets the justice he richly deserves.