The Flood planning tribunal has received "almost weekly threats from various persons that the tribunal will be injuncted by them in the High Court", Mr Justice Flood said at the start of yesterday's hearing.
However, he said the tribunal did not intend to desist from its work in the face of those threats and he outlined his intention to hear "at the earliest opportunity" the allegations made by Mr James Gogarty, the main witness.
Mr Justice Flood said his planned action was neither unprecedented nor unusual. Courts and tribunals frequently made arrangements to take the evidence of particular witnesses at a time or a place of their choosing. The tribunal, he said, was investigating matters of urgent public importance identified by the Oireachtas
"Lest there be any doubt, it should be clearly understood that this tribunal is the sole authority in relation to what evidence is heard by the tribunal and as to the weight, if any, to be attributed to any evidence," he said.
Regarding the constitutional rights of those affected by the tribunal, Mr Justice Flood said it was planned to respect those of all concerned. "Those constitutional rights include the right to fair procedures and the right to constitutional justice as interpreted by the Supreme Court."
The decision as to what witnesses would be called to give evidence and the order in which those witnesses would give evidence would be a matter "within the sole discretion of the tribunal".
Mr Justice Flood said the tribunal was also required to devise and regulate its own procedures and in this regard he ruled that language and procedure must "reflect the courtesy and respect properly due to a tribunal properly established by the Oireachtas".
In relation to disclosures to the media, the judge said the tribunal had made a detailed criminal complaint to the Garda. In response, the Garda had informed the tribunal that a criminal investigation under the supervision of two superintendents was under way.
"The tribunal is satisfied that this criminal investigation has been afforded an appropriate level of priority and resources having regard to the importance of the matters being investigated."
However, the tribunal remained concerned at the "apparently systematic pattern of unauthorised disclosures" of confidential documents and information.
Laying special emphasis on the fact that "Mr Gogarty is a person of mature years", Mr Justice Flood said it might be necessary from time to time to take short breaks during oral evidence. However, the tribunal had already decided that it was in the public interest that his evidence should be heard.
While the tribunal would, where appropriate, serve summonses compelling a witness to appear, he also said it was important to note that "there is no person on trial at this inquiry".
The tribunal involved no prosecution and no defence, and any statement or admission made by a person before the tribunal of inquiry was generally not admissible against them in criminal proceedings, he said.
"The central purpose of this tribunal is to seek to establish facts and to make appropriate recommendations in relation to those facts." After legal submissions were made protesting at the chairman's decision to take Mr Gogarty's evidence, Mr Justice Flood said he had considered the applications and submissions made to him in relation thereto.
He was satisfied that none of the submissions fundamentally affected the decision of the tribunal to hear the evidence of Mr Gogarty and to proceed with the decision. He would deliver his reasons on the ruling at a later date.
