Former Taoiseach Mr Charles J. Haughey looks set to give evidence if his trial for allegedly obstructing the McCracken tribunal goes ahead next March.
His counsel, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, told Dublin Circuit Criminal Court that Mr Haughey had no choice except to answer the allegations against him because his credibility had been damaged by huge amounts of negative media publicity.
Mr McGonigal was making his closing submission on Mr Haughey's application to have his trial adjourned until the Moriarty tribunal has ended. Mr Haughey is due to go on trial on March 21st on two counts of obstructing the McCracken tribunal in 1997.
Mr McGonigal said the jury would have to base its interpretation of documents on its view of Mr Haughey's credibility. Mr Haughey's reputation had been damaged by media comment about the Moriarty tribunal, and he had little choice but to take the stand if he wanted a jury to believe his version of events.
He asked Judge Kevin Haugh for an adjournment to allow "a fade factor" on negative publicity about Mr Haughey.
He said that between 1992 and 1996, Mr Haughey was out of the public eye and young people were unaware of who he was. If the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had taken the case at an earlier date, negative publicity would have been lessened.
Judge Haugh said that he would decide today on whether to allow the adjournment. He said he wanted to give an answer promptly because of a temporary ban on reporting of exhibits in the case.
Mr Maurice Gaffney SC, for the DPP, said Mr Haughey's team had pointed to the fact that he was being investigated by the Revenue Commissioners.
Mr Gaffney said everybody in the State had a dispute with the State about tax at some time in their lives and the Revenue Commissioners couldn't be expected to "go to sleep" because someone was facing trial.
Mr Gaffney said the Supreme Court ruling in the Z case, given by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, was a comprehensive statement of the law on pre-trial publicity. In that case, the man who was alleged to have raped the girl at the centre of the X case had argued that he could not get a fair trial because of adverse media comment.
The Supreme Court had been shown 12 volumes of pre-trial media publicity, much of it commenting on whether the man had attacked the girl or not. The court had nevertheless ruled that the accused should face trial.
Mr Gaffney said the judgment in this and other cases indicated that juries must be trusted with a high degree of resistance to media comment.
Mr Gaffney said Mr Haughey could have answered charges against him in public or at a tribunal. Although there was no compulsion for him to reply to allegations at the Moriarty tribunal, he could have taken steps to protect his reputation. Letting it all pass had resulted in an unfavourable press reaction.
He added there could be no other interpretation of Mr Haughey's conduct except that he was satisfied to have adverse comment published about him.
Judge Haugh asked Mr Gaffney if he was seriously arguing that Mr Haughey was seeking to adjourn his trial because of adverse media comment about which he really didn't care.
Mr Gaffney said the quick way to end the comment would have been to supply the tribunals with the information they required.
Mr Gaffney stressed that he was not criticising Mr Haughey for his decision not to answer allegations made against him at the Moriarty tribunal. However, he must have known that if the facts arose at the tribunal in a "roundabout way", they would have a negative effect on his reputation.
He added that the media had a right to free speech and that if Mr Haughey was unsatisfied with the comment, he could have sought contempt proceedings.