FLOOD TRIBUNAL: The lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop first recorded a corrupt payment in his diaries just five days before the terms of reference of the Flood tribunal were published, the tribunal heard yesterday.
Mr Dunlop said he couldn't explain why he recorded an alleged £2,500 bribe to former Fine Gael senator Mr Liam Cosgrave on October 30th, 1997.
However, he rejected a claim by Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Mr Cosgrave, that the entry "defies common sense".
Mr O'Higgins, who at a previous hearing accused Mr Dunlop of forging his diaries, said the entry was made in an "utterly changed" and "dangerous" climate, and despite the fact that Mr Dunlop was "not a man to keep records". He said if the diary entry had been made contemporaneously, it would have recorded, not a payment on that date, but a political donation to Mr Cosgrave in July 1997 which would have been recognised as the cause of "potential controversy" down the line.
Mr Dunlop rejected this. While admitting his record-keeping had been "furtive", the diary entry in question was an accurate record of a payment made to Mr Cosgrave. It was one of two payments for £2,500 each made to him in return for his support for rezoning motions relating to Jackson Way lands in south Co Dublin, Mr Dunlop added.
Mr Cosgrave denies such corrupt payments were made.
Of the donation of July 1997, Mr Dunlop initially said this was broken down into a payment of £1,000 in cash and a cheque for £1,500 made payable to the firm of solicitors in which Mr Cosgrave was a partner.
"You are wrong," Mr O'Higgins replied, and showed the tribunal a cheque for £2,500 made payable to Mr Cosgrave in person.
Mr Dunlop apologised for the "error" but rejected a claim by Mr O'Higgins that it undermined his evidence. "The net result is the same. He [Mr Cosgrave] got £2,500," said Mr Dunlop.
The witness admitted to making another "mistake" when he told tribunal counsel at an earlier hearing that Mr Cosgrave had signed six motions relating to Jackson Way and another development on October 21st, 1997, in Mr Dunlop's office. A letter of October 24th, 1997, however, showed some of the motions had only been drafted on that date.Mr O'Higgins claimed the witness had a habit of making assertions which, when checked against evidence, did not stand up to scrutiny.
Mr O'Higgins will continue his cross-examination today.
