The High Court has ordered the Mahon tribunal to disclose further material to Cork property developer Owen O'Callaghan for the purpose of the cross-examination of developer Tom Gilmartin by lawyers for Mr O'Callaghan.
Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill yesterday ruled the tribunal must disclose to Mr O'Callaghan material relevant to the issue of Mr Gilmartin's credibility but not directly relevant to the factual allegations in modules Quarryvale 1 and Quarryvale II of the tribunal.
However, he directed the material could only be used for the purpose of the cross-examination of Mr Gilmartin or for necessary inquiries related to that cross-examination.
Mr O'Callaghan has claimed Mr Gilmartin has made "entirely untrue" and "preposterous" allegations in private to the Mahon tribunal to the effect that Mr O'Callaghan made offshore payments to senior politicians. He said those allegations were never mentioned in evidence by Mr Gilmartin and were concealed by the tribunal.
Mr Justice O'Neill yesterday gave judgment on proceedings in which the tribunal contended that, as it had produced to Mr O'Callaghan some 54 redacted (edited) documents, it had complied with the terms of a High Court order requiring it to disclose documents to Mr O'Callaghan for the purpose of the cross-examination of Mr Gilmartin before the tribunal.
The tribunal has said the redactions were for 11 reasons, including that in the tribunal's view they related to matters that were not relevant to and outside the terms of reference of the tribunal.
They also related to matters that had been partly investigated by the tribunal and not afterwards pursued.
Some of the redactions were because the matters referred to intruded on the privacy of other persons and were unrelated to the work of the tribunal.
Paul Sreenan SC, for Mr O'Callaghan, had argued his client was entitled to the documents in unedited form in order to properly cross-examine Mr Gilmartin and to challenge his credibility.
The documents in unedited form were reviewed by Mr Justice O'Neill before giving judgment yesterday.
The judge said he was satisfied that some of the material he had reviewed could not realistically be of assistance to Mr O'Callaghan in cross-examining any notice party to the tribunal as to their credibility.
However, he believed the tribunal had not advanced, in relation to other material, grounds on which redactions in those documents were permissible. While individuals whose names were redacted did of course have a right to privacy, that was a right which both the tribunal and Mr O'Callaghan must observe.
While the express constitutional right of Mr O'Callaghan to his good name and to defend his good name must prevail over the right to privacy of other individuals in respect of whom statements were made by Mr Gilmartin, Mr Justice O'Neill added, this could only be to the extent that disclosure of material which might offend their right to privacy was absolutely necessary for the purpose of defending Mr O'Callaghan's right to his good name.