Former Fianna Fáil TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, has complained to the tribunal about media comments on his involvement in a controversial land rezoning currently under investigation by the Flood tribunal.
Mr Lawlor, who has denied any involvement in attempts made to rezone the land at Carrickmines during the 1990s, says media descriptions of him as a "middle-man" or "go-between" in the affair are prejudicial.
Mr Lawlor first wrote to the tribunal last Friday, the day after he was mentioned in the opening statement read by Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal. In that letter, the former TD quoted an Irish Times article which referred to Mr Gallagher's warning about reaching "premature judgment" before all the evidence had been heard.
In his opening statement, Mr Gallagher had acknowledged there was a risk of damage to the reputation of individuals but he said this was beyond the control of the tribunal. He promised the tribunal would make every effort to minimise this damage.
Proceeding by any method other than the reading of an opening statement containing allegations would lead the tribunal into "a forest of repetition", Mr Gallagher had said.
Despite this warning, Mr Lawlor said, the media had reported an "entirely different picture" of the opening statement. They did this by alleging Mr Lawlor acted as a "middleman" to get land rezoned by bribing county councillors, he said. "Nowhere in the opening statement or in any other document is there anything to support such a statement."
Mr Lawlor referred to specific items on RTÉ radio and in the Irish Independent which referred to him as a "middle man" and a "go-between", respectively. (Reports in The Irish Times did not use these terms.) Mr Lawlor asked the tribunal to read his letter into the record and to confirm that the tribunal lawyers had not used these expressions.
In his reply, Mr Justice Flood noted Mr Lawlor's concerns and acknowledged that Mr Gallagher had not used these terms in his opening statement.
Mr Lawlor wrote to the tribunal again on Monday asking it to note the prejudicial effect of the media comment on him and to take this into account. He asked the tribunal to draw the attention of the media to this fact.
The tribunal agreed to read the correspondence with no further comment.
