Lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop has apologised to former independent councillor Mr John O'Halloran for incorrectly linking him to attempts to rezone the Paisley Park lands in Carrickmine.
Mr Dunlop said he accepted that Mr O'Halloran did not attend the council meeting in June 1992 at which the rezoning of the lands was considered. However, he said Mr O'Halloran would have supported the proposal had he attended.
He also agreed that he was wrong to claim that he lobbied Mr O'Halloran on the matter in May 1991; Mr O'Halloran was only elected to the council a month later.
However, Mr Dunlop stood over his substantive allegations, which are that he paid Mr O'Halloran £5,000 in 1992 and £2,500 when the politician stood in a by-election in 1996. He has claimed that the politician complained to him that he was getting nothing and others were "coining it".
He agreed with Mr Martin Dully, barrister, for Mr O'Halloran, that he should have made it clear in his statement that Mr O'Halloran had not supported the Paisley Park motions.
Mr Dully said that the witness had a casual attitude to recollection. It was inaccurate and a "fundamental mistake" for him to claim that he had lobbied Mr O'Halloran in May 1991.
Mr Dunlop said this was not a fundamental mistake, but it had not been as precise as he would like it. He unreservedly apologised for any imputation of wrongdoing arising from his terminology vis-à-vis Paisley Park. But this did not take away from the substance of his allegation.
According to Mr Dully, the witness had incorrectly described his client as an independent councillor in 1992. In fact, he had been elected as a Labour councillor in 1991 and only left the party in 1993.
Mr Dunlop said that Mr O'Halloran was an enthusiastic supporter of rezoning.
He said that he "didn't give a fig" for what his Labour colleagues thought of what he was doing on the council.
Mr Dully described this as a very unfair remark.
A Labour spokesman last night confirmed that Mr O'Halloran's membership was terminated in June 1993 on foot of a complaint that he was acting contrary to the interests of the party. The whip was withdrawn some time earlier.
Mr Dully asked if the witness accepted that the 1996 payment was a political contribution.
"I can't judge what it was. I was requested to support your client in a by-election," Mr Dunlop replied.
Mr Dully said that his client was an independent councillor who did not have a "wonderful set of records".
He had recalled, however, that he did receive an unsolicited £500 contribution from the witness.
