Gogarty received £162,000, tribunal told

It has been clear from the start that someone, possibly even many people, are lying at this tribunal

It has been clear from the start that someone, possibly even many people, are lying at this tribunal. But until yesterday, we didn't realise just how much the different versions of the truth conflict.

Now we know that the developer Mr Michael Bailey claims he paid Mr James Gogarty £162,000 in 1989 and 1990. The money was allegedly a "finder's fee" for Mr Gogarty's help in securing the sale of the Murphy group lands in north Co Dublin for £2.3 million.

In contrast, Mr Gogarty's story is that Mr Bailey paid the former minister, Mr Ray Burke, a £40,000 bribe in 1989 and then gave Mr Gogarty a £50,000 cheque in 1990 to buy his silence. He completely denies Mr Bailey's version of events.

Whatever direction the money flowed, the sums sloshing around in building and political circles at the time are simply mind-boggling. This, remember, was pre-Celtic Tiger Ireland. Unemployment stood at 15 per cent, the average industrial wage was £11,000 a year and the health services were collapsing. Yet it seems that hotel lobbies and builders' homes were frequently the scene of stuffed brown envelopes and briefcases passing hands.

READ MORE

Mr Bailey's story explains how Mr Gogarty comes to be in possession of a £50,000 cheque from the developer which was never cashed. This was one of two post-dated cheques given to Mr Gogarty in November 1989 as security for cash payments which were to follow, Mr Colm Allen SC, for Mr Bailey, told the tribunal yesterday.

Mr Allen unveiled his client's version of events for the first time. Mr Gogarty wanted a fee of £150,000. Mr Bailey felt this was exorbitant but he coughed up anyway. In fact, he paid £162,000, after Mr Gogarty sought interest on what he considered delayed payment of the money.

At a meeting in the Royal Dublin Hotel on November 23rd, 1989, Mr Bailey allegedly gave the witness a briefcase containing £50,000 in cash and the two post-dated cheques for £50,000 each. This was four days before the sale of the lands to Mr Bailey was agreed.

The rest of the money was paid in smaller cash payments at meetings in Mr Bailey's or Mr Gogarty's house. Mr Allen produced petty cash vouchers for three such payments to Mr Gogarty in 1990, for £5,000, £10,000 and £15,000.

All this presents Mr Bailey with a number of problems. For a start, the details are scant. Mr Allen said he would produce bank records to show that a £50,000 cheque was cashed but there is no evidence to show the money was paid to Mr Gogarty.

There is even less evidence for the smaller cash payments. No dates and few circumstances are provided, leaving the witness little opportunity to defend himself. Mr Justice Flood warned yesterday he might not attach a great deal of credence to this evidence. Then there is the response Mr Bailey gave in 1997 when asked by the journalist Frank Connolly about the £50,000 cheque in Mr Gogarty's possession. He said then it was to assist in the purchase of a Murphy-owned house in Baggot Street.

Mr Bailey's statement to the tribunal on the matters read simply: "I never offered to pay or paid Mr Gogarty money in return for agreeing to forget about pursuing proceedings against JMSE and `simply to enjoy life'." This is a flat denial of the reason Mr Gogarty says he gave him the cheque.

Finally, the Revenue Commissioners might take an interest in such substantial, seemingly undeclared payments. The Murphy group, too, might plausibly feel somewhat short-changed by the arrangement Mr Bailey alleges he reached with Mr Gogarty, assuming the witness was, as his employers maintain, engaged in a "frolic" of his own.

Mr Gogarty never wilted in the face of these serious allegations. On the contrary, he remained combative and truculent to the end of the session. By buying the lands outright, Mr Bailey had "cleaned up and taken the Murphys for a ride". Even the 100 acres he had managed to get rezoned was worth £20 million within a couple of years, Mr Gogarty claimed.

Mr Connolly ended up in the witness box after he spoke briefly to the witness during one of the breaks. This angered the Bailey legal team who accused him of "prompting" the witness.

Mr Connolly explained that he saw that Mr Gogarty was in some distress and he made some "light-hearted" remarks to him.

The chairman accepted this and when Mr Bailey's lawyers continued to protest, he warned them to desist: "If you want to dig a large hole, you might fall into it." This earned the biggest laugh of the day, and a burst of applause that an embarrassed chairman was himself forced to curtail.

Mr Allen, having earlier foresworn the use of insults, was soon accusing the witness once more of "piling lie upon lie" with "a farrago of untruths".

When Mr Gogarty's counsel intervened on a number of occasions, Mr Allen indulged in vulgarity. "Mr Callanan is beginning to jump up and down with the frequency one would normally associate with the bloomers of members of the oldest professions," he declared.

The day of the "big, big ambush" ended on such verbal skirmishes, with Mr Gogarty telling counsel "don't be shaking your fist at me" and Mr Allen protesting that he was just putting on his watch.

Today is the last day the public can expect to see such theatrics, as Mr Allen is expected to conclude his cross-examination of Mr Gogarty this morning.