FORMER TAOISEACH Bertie Ahern has been awarded the legal costs of his successful High Court challenge to the handling by the Mahon tribunal of aspects of its inquiries into controversial lodgements to Mr Ahern’s accounts when he was minister for finance in 1993 and 1994.
The total costs of the action are estimated at more than €150,000.
The three-judge High Court, which earlier this month found in favour of Mr Ahern on all grounds of his challenge, was also told yesterday that the tribunal has decided not to appeal the High Court findings to the Supreme Court.
The case was before the court yesterday to address the issue of who will pay the costs of the two-day hearing.
Shane Murphy SC, for Mr Ahern, said he had been instructed to apply for his costs.
Denis McDonald SC, for the tribunal, said he could not resist that application.
The issue of a stay did not arise as there would be no appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr McDonald added.
The legal action by Mr Ahern was heard by the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Richard Johnson, and Mr Justice Peter Kelly and Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill.
Mr Justice Kelly delivered the court’s 48-page judgment on May 8th.
The judgment upheld arguments by Mr Ahern that the parliamentary privilege over Dáil statements as provided for in Article 15.13 of the Constitution does not permit the tribunal – in its report or while Mr Ahern is giving evidence to it – to draw attention to his Dáil statements about his financial affairs that may be inconsistent with his statements outside the Dáil or in his evidence.
The tribunal may reproduce the Dáil statements of September and October 2006 in its report but is prohibited by Article 15.13 from suggesting they were untrue or misleading or inspired by improper motivation, the court ruled.
The public could draw their own conclusions as to whether the statements were inaccurate and, if so, whether such inaccuracies were “deliberate or accidental”.
The High Court also ruled Mr Ahern is entitled to claim legal professional privilege over 150 documents.
These relate to his retention of banking expert Paddy Stronge to refute the tribunal’s claims about the nature of two lodgements – one to Mr Ahern’s account and the second to an account of his former partner Celia Larkin.
A third issue – in which Mr Ahern sought orders requiring the tribunal to hand over documents on which it based its claims concerning the lodgements – was resolved following the tribunal’s agreement at the outset of the case to hand over those documents amounting to 110 pages of bank data and computer records.
Mr Ahern sought the documents to refute the tribunal’s claim that a sum of IR£28,772 lodged to the account of Ms Larkin at the AIB branch at O’Connell Street, Dublin, on December 4th, 1994 was equivalent to an exchange of $45,000 dollars.
The tribunal has also suggested that an amount lodged into Mr Ahern’s account on October 11th, 1994 was equivalent to Stg£25,000.
