An affidavit to the tribunal by Mr James Gogarty was "not just a lie, but a perjurious lie" counsel for the Murphy group, Mr Garret Cooney SC, claimed yesterday.
He said a false claim by Mr Gogarty that he had had no contact with Mr Michael Bailey between 1992 and August 1996 supported this assertion.
Mr Bailey agreed with this and said he had considerable telephone contact with Mr Gogarty during the period. He was answering questions during cross-examination by Mr Cooney.
Mr Cooney also dealt with a claim by Mr Gogarty that in August-September 1990 he met Mr Bailey in the Skylon hotel in Dublin and Mr Bailey put a £50,000 cheque in his breast pocket and told him to "enjoy himself".
Mr Cooney said this cheque, furnished to the tribunal by Mr Gogarty, came from a chequebook used in the months of November-December 1989. Was this "about 10 or 11 months before this alleged meeting in the Skylon hotel?" Mr Cooney asked.
"That is correct," Mr Bailey replied.
"Mr Gogarty is asking the tribunal to believe that somehow or another, you kept a cheque from a chequebook from which all of the other cheques were used months beforehand - you kept that for a period of eight to nine months until August or early September of 1990 and then somehow or another put it into an envelope and gave it to him. That's what he is asking the tribunal to believe, isn't that right?," asked Mr Cooney.
"That is correct," replied Mr Bailey.
Mr Cooney referred to a meeting in Mr Gogarty's house in June 1996 attended by Mr Bailey and his brother Tom, which dealt with the final payment of a "finder's fee" for Mr Gogarty. "Mr Gogarty seemed to be consumed with rage and malice towards the Murphys, but particularly towards Mr Murphy jnr, isn't that correct?" Mr Cooney asked.
"That would be my assessment," replied Mr Bailey. "He said very nasty things about the man (Mr Murphy jnr)." Mr Cooney said: "We know some months prior to this meeting, in the course of a conversation he [Mr Gogarty] had with a journalist, Frank Connolly, he said, `I will hound them right, left and centre, as long as there is life left in my body"'.
"My recollection was that he, as he said himself, would do anything to bring down the Murphys," said Mr Bailey.
Mr Cooney suggested this was partly because of a grievance Mr Gogarty had relating to his pension. Bailey replied: "I always felt that the kernel of the row was his pension, until I found at a later stage, when I found that he had been paid his pension, I couldn't believe it." "He led you to believe that in fact he had been treated very bad ly indeed by the Murphys insofar as financial provision was concerned," Mr Cooney said.
"That is my belief," replied Mr Bailey.
Mr Cooney said Mr Bailey had found at their meeting in 1996 that Mr Gogarty had received a severance package from the Murphys worth in excess of £700,000. Mr Bailey said Mr Gogarty had never told him he had received the money.
Mr Cooney read out part of Mr Gogarty's affidavit where Mr Gogarty said he had no further contact with Mr Bailey after a brief meeting in 1992. "Your evidence is to the contrary isn't it, that you had quite a considerable amount of contact over that period of time [between 1992 and 1996]?"
Mr Cooney said Mr Bailey knew there were telephone records which would establish beyond any doubt that the statement by Mr Gogarty was untrue.