Mahon tribunal:A "gross injustice" was done to Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment Micheál Martin at the Mahon tribunal last week, the Minister's counsel has said.
At the Quarryvale II module of the planning tribunal yesterday, Dr John O'Mahony SC criticised the handling of evidence last Friday in relation to his client.
Property developer Tom Gilmartin had told the tribunal that rival developer Owen O'Callaghan told him he had paid Mr Martin a six-figure sum in the early 1990s.
Dr O'Mahony said the statement was a "profoundly serious defamation" of Mr Martin and the tribunal should not have allowed it. He described Mr Gilmartin as an "uncontrolled and uncontrollable" witness.
"It is difficult to believe that evidence was led and allowed to proceed in circumstances where Minister Martin's legal and constitutional rights were so completely disregarded as they were here on Friday," he said.
He also insisted on reading into the record a statement given to the tribunal by Mr Martin, in which he said he had received £6,200 from Mr O'Callaghan in political donations between 1989 and 1993 and that £3,500 of that had been lodged into his wife's account.
Tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon defended the handling of last Friday's evidence.
He said the tribunal could not control Mr Gilmartin or any other witness and he added that documents sent to the Minister's legal team outlined an accusation that Mr Martin had been paid a five-figure sum and the team should have been aware of those allegations and acted accordingly.
"We certainly don't accept that we have a responsibility . . . to tip- off individual legal teams when they should know that an individual is going to be named or that their client is likely to be named," he said.
Counsel for the tribunal Pat Quinn SC described Mr O'Mahony's comments as a "personalised attack" on his handling of the evidence and pointed out that a document had been furnished to Mr Martin's legal team in November 2005, which included the allegations of a payment to Mr Martin.
Dr O'Mahony said, however, that he was not standing down on his criticisms "one iota".
Counsel for Mr Gilmartin, Hugh O'Neill SC, then told the tribunal that his client had meant to say a five-figure sum in connection with Mr Martin on Friday and regretted his error.
When Mr Gilmartin took the stand, Mr Quinn, for the tribunal, highlighted a number of possible inconsistencies in his evidence to the tribunal. On Friday, Mr Gilmartin had alleged he was told about a £50,000 payment to Bertie Ahern by Mr O'Callaghan following a meeting at Allied Irish Bank in October 1989.
However, Mr Quinn pointed out yesterday that Mr Gilmartin did not have a relationship with the bank until December 1989.
Mr Gilmartin then said he was not 100 per cent sure where the meeting took place, but it might have happened at Buswell's hotel, the airport or in his office.
Mr Quinn also highlighted possible contradictions in relation to Mr Gilmartin's source of the Ahern information.
He said Mr Gilmartin had attributed the information to Mr O'Callaghan, but had implied in earlier statements that "a mysterious gentleman" had informed him.
Mr Gilmartin then told the tribunal that he had calls from an anonymous caller, in the 1990s and in 2000, who believed Mr Gilmartin had been "wronged and very badly shafted", in relation to Quarryvale. However he insisted that Mr O'Callaghan had told him about the Ahern payment.
