The jailing of the Dublin West TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, was wanted by the Flood tribunal, yet this was unwarranted as a result of the steps he had taken to answer questions and provide it with information, his counsel has argued.
Referring to the transcript of Mr Lawlor's evidence before the tribunal over four days last month and affidavit evidence from his client, Mr John Rogers SC said yesterday in the High Court it was clear his client was seeking to comply with the court's orders.
He rejected a submission that there was a deliberate breach of the orders.
It had been asserted by the tribunal that there was a "belated conversion" on Mr Lawlor's part to put things right and that that was only done when he faced committal.
However, there was ample evidence to show that the TD had made two affidavits of discovery as best he could in relation to omissions and seeking to confirm to the tribunal that he would make up the shortfall.
Mr Rogers told Mr Justice Smyth the tribunal could have taken up Mr Lawlor's offer to explain the difference between sums of £2.6 million and £4.6 million which it calculated he had received.
Having regard to Mr Lawlor's answers and explanations, he should have been given an opportunity to "put himself right".
There was a large volume of material to show that Mr Lawlor complied with the orders and that he had "delivered".
He had made two affidavits which allowed the tribunal to establish that he had received £4.5 million. That did not seem like concealment.
He had said he regretted that his efforts were inadequate and apologised.
Earlier, Mr Rogers said that appearing before the tribunal could be frightening. There was a "united view" of the state Mr Frank Dunlop was in after his appearance.
At the tribunal there might have been "a bit of shoulder up" between Mr Lawlor and tribunal counsel and the chairman. However, Mr Lawlor had tried to "play ball" on the second day of the inquiry.
He was being told while in the witness box to phone and get his staff to get information. He had said he would give the information the next day but had been told he must give it that day.
He had been asked if during a break he could phone a secretary but he had said he saw that as unreasonable.
Mr Rogers, referring to a transcript, said it indicated that Mr Lawlor was being put under oppressive pressure.
Since December 15th, 272 persons had been written to on behalf of Mr Lawlor, asking them to furnish documents. A number of persons had been phoned. Many letters had been received in reply.
Mr Lawlor, in an affidavit, had indicated that he did not expect to be asked the questions he was asked at the tribunal.
He was willing to co-operate and regretted that Mr Justice Flood had been driven to the conclusion that he was not co-operative.
Mr Rogers said his client had expected questioning to focus on matters raised in its letters dated May and June last.
However, the tribunal asked questions on an extraordinary number of matters going back as far as 1974.
When Mr Lawlor got a letter from the tribunal in early December, he set about preparing a supplemental affidavit setting out certain bank accounts and bank accounts held in nominee names.
There was no court order that he provide a schedule of political donations, but he was asked and said he would give it.
The "red-hot lights of the Irish publicity machine" were on Mr Lawlor, and he was being asked to provide something from five years back and he did it.
On December 14th a document was produced to his client and he was ordered by Mr Justice Flood to "sign it". But such an instruction was not within the power of the tribunal.
On the same day Mr Lawlor told the tribunal he would endeavour to have by the end of the following week details of all political contributions received by him over the previous 15 years. This was a most important concession and he (Mr Rogers) was relying on this response by Mr Lawlor to say that the current proceedings were premature.
On December 15th it had been put to Mr Lawlor that he had received an income of £4.659 million over the years. Mr Lawlor had responded by saying he would have his accountants check it out. Then there was the question of the £2.624 million in unexplained lodgements. Mr Lawlor had received no prior notice of this and other questions relating to his income. It was "a bit of a joke" to ask him to explain this shortfall in such circumstances.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the tribunal, said Mr Lawlor had provided the tribunal with a list of persons and corporate entities from which he had received sums totalling £1.5 million. The money was received between 1973 and 2000.
He said excuses which had been put forward by Mr Lawlor for not providing financial documentation to the tribunal did not stand up.
There had been a serious breach of court orders. The breach over documents was not mere oversight. There was a significant contempt of a court order.
Mr Clarke said there were three categories of breaches of orders. There had been a failure to include a significant volume of documentation; a failure or refusal to answer legitimate questions; and a failure to be in a position to answer questions. There had been a point-blank refusal to answer certain questions.
Mr Lawlor, in an affidavit, was saying now that he was willing to co-operate fully with the tribunal. He was now saying that he regretted his efforts to provide documentation were inadequate and he apologised.
The excuse tendered for the substantial inadequacies was time constraint. It appeared now that extensive requests for information had gone out from Mr Lawlor in late December.
He said Mr Lawlor had told of how members of his family had gone through files over Christmas. However, there was no reason why that exercise could not have been engaged in two or three months ago.
If Mr Lawlor had genuinely tried to comply with the order, and had come up against a genuine time constraint, he could have applied to the court to extend the time for compliance.
Mr Clarke said there was no excuse for Mr Lawlor saying he did not think certain questions were relevant.
Submitting that there was a failure by Mr Lawlor to put himself in a position to answer questions at the tribunal, Mr Clarke said that in some instances the TD had not even read the documents he had made available. "I'd invite you to conclude there was a deliberate and conscious breach on the part of Mr Lawlor of orders of this court."
Mr Lawlor now indicated he was seeking more details and requests for information had gone out. However, that was happening extremely late in the day. The position of Mr Justice Flood was one of "understandable scepticism".
Mr Clarke said the view of the tribunal was that a deliberate and significant failure on the part of Mr Lawlor to comply with the order of the court should not go unmarked.
Mr Clarke said he was inviting the court to take appropriate action both in regard to the historical and continuing breach of the court orders.