It may be the most shocking series of allegations about political and planning corruption the Irish legal system has ever heard. It was, in the word of Mr James Gogarty, "dynamite". In one dizzy morning, the 81-year-old star witness at the planning tribunal raced through a litany of allegations, drawing a government minister, six county councillors, several planning officials, three builders and even himself into a sprawling web of intrigue and planning corruption.
The former minister for foreign affairs, Mr Ray Burke, was portrayed as a "Mister Fixit", controlling a network of political inferiors, the "five or six" (unnamed) Fianna Fail councillors who would do his bidding on Dublin County Council, in return for payments.
The developer, Mr Michael Bailey, the eventual buyer of the 700 or so acres of north Dublin land put on the market by Mr Gogarty's employer, Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering, was the crucial link to Mr Burke, according to Mr Gogarty. But not only that; Mr Bailey could also "cross the political divide" and bring in support from councillors in other parties for the crucial votes on rezoning.
Mr Bailey could rely on the "close liaison" of officials in the county council, the witness claimed, in particular the then assistant city and county manager, Mr George Redmond. Mr Redmond was looking for £25,000 from JMSE in compensation for not being employed as a consultant when he retired, Mr Gogarty alleged.
Mr Gogarty gave his version of events at the meeting he attended at Mr Burke's home in early June 1989. He said he handed over to Mr Burke an envelope containing £40,000, £30,000 in cash and a £10,000 cheque made out to cash. Mr Bailey gave the politician an envelope which Mr Gogarty believed also contained £40,000.
He had no way of knowing what was in the Bailey envelope, as he admits himself ("There could be feathers in it for all I know"). He says he did not count the money in his own envelope, but did check the bundles of £100 and £50 notes and was satisfied that they contained about £30,000 in cash.
His sworn testimony differs in some respects from the version of events relayed in earlier newspaper articles. For example, he was quoted before as saying that the managing director of JMSE, Mr Frank Reynolds, was present at the meeting with Mr Burke, but yesterday he agreed that Mr Reynolds "excused himself legitimately" from attending.
But he still insists that Mr Joseph Murphy jnr was present, an allegation Mr Murphy denies. Counsel for Mr Murphy and Mr Bailey are likely to pick over these and other differences in great detail when they cross-examine the witness next week.
The fact that Mr Gogarty cannot be certain that Mr Bailey gave Mr Burke £40,000, or that aspects of his testimony are disputed, lends even greater importance to the background details and the supporting case he has made. Mr Justice Flood may never be able to prove what was in the envelope or answer all the questions, but he may be able to satisfy himself as to what happened on the balance of probability.
In this respect, Mr Gogarty has built an impressive case. He has asserted that Mr Joseph Murphy snr, the Guernsey-based owner of JMSE, wanted to dispose of his lands in north Dublin quickly. This, he alleges, was because of the tax implications of allegations made by a former JMSE executive, Mr Liam Conroy, in an unfair dismissals case brought in the Isle of Man.
Mr Conroy is dead, but his affidavit is available to the tribunal. Its contents would seem to be crucial to explaining events during the period. Mr Gogarty contends that he [Mr Murphy snr] wanted to liquidate his assets and move them out of the State. However, JMSE's lawyers have indicated that they will fight hard to prevent its disclosure, on the basis that it contains sensitive commercial information.
Mr Gogarty had the lands valued and put on the market. The auctioneer's advice that some of the lands should be held on to for their longer-term development potential was overruled, it seems. On Mr Murphy snr's instruction, the lands were to be sold by private treaty rather than public auction.
But Mr Murphy jnr and Mr Reynolds were unhappy about this approach, which flew in the face of the company's long-term strategy of buying agricultural land cheaply and then sitting on it until it could be rezoned and developed. Mr Gogarty said he was "caught between the two sides".
Enter Mr Bailey. His proposal that he and JMSE develop the lands jointly seemed to Mr Murphy jnr and Mr Reynolds "the best they could salvage from the situation". If either man had any objections to his methods, they did not mention them to Mr Gogarty.
From his one meeting with Mr Burke, Mr Gogarty gathered the impression that the minister was already well apprised of the situation. Mr Burke said Mr Murphy [snr] and Mr Bailey were "well aware of how he had honoured his commitments in the past". It was to be a gentleman's agreement, with no need for a receipt, Mr Bailey assured him.
Mr Gogarty admits he went along with all this. "I didn't give a damn one way or another, if I could get out of the lot", he told the tribunal at one stage. But he had his limits; he repeatedly refused to sign the company's accounts for 1988, saying they were incorrect. As a result, he claims, his pension claim was deferred.
Eventually, Mr Murphy sold all the lands to Mr Bailey outright. The reason, it seems from Mr Gogarty's testimony, stems from his refusal to sign an affidavit countering Mr Conroy's document. As a result, Mr Murphy liquidated his assets.